Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 This argument is not persuasive.
2 Assuming that appellant is correct that the embodiment is not
3 preferred, we still can not ignore the non-preferred embodiments.
4 All disclosure of the prior art, including unpreferred
5 embodiments, must be considered. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
6 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). See also Ultradent Products,
7 Inc. v. Lifelike Cosmetics, 127 F.3d 1065, 1068, 44 USPQ2d 1336,
8 1339 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (it is error to construe the prior art as
9 limited to preferred embodiments).
10 Additionally, we note that the appellant has misapprehended
11 the grounds of rejection. The examiner need not show that the
12 limitation is precisely shown in the reference; rather, the
13 examiner need only show that the claimed ranges would have been
14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(A
15 patent may not be obtained if “…the differences between the
16 subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
17 that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious…”).
18 The examiner is not held to a 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation-type
19 standard when formulating an obviousness rejection.
20 Moreover, it is also evident that De Keyser teaches an
21 adhesive formulation being essentially free of solvent and water.
22 (Column 1, lines 5-10). We also observe that De Keyser states:
23
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007