Appeal No. 2006-0466
Application No. 10/175,787
In reaching this determination, we note the appellants’
argument that “it is more likely that one having ordinary skill
in the art would stay with an ethylene based non-woven than a
propylene based non woven for the outer layer of a composite . .
.” See the Brief, page 12. However, as indicated supra,
Strzelewicz clearly contemplates employing TYVEKŪ (polyolefin
inclusive of both polyethylene and polypropylene) or other
thermoplastic flexible sheet materials as the outer layer of its
envelope. Moreover, Jones is not limited to employing preferred
TYVEK 1461 (high density polyethylene); it contemplates employing
both polyethylene and polypropylene as the outer layer of the
packaging means. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874
F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“the fact
that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not
controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including
unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”); In re Boe, 355
F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)(all of the
disclosures in a reference, including non-preferred embodiments,
“must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary
skill in the art”).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007