Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 14
Application No. 10/412,840
resistance. Such properties would suggest the substantial
absence of water in the substrate during the curing for reasons
as discussed above and for reasons set forth in the answer.
It is well settled that a prior art reference may be relied
upon for all that it would have reasonably conveyed to one having
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Merck &
Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10
USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Concerning this matter, it
is well settled that a reference must be considered in its
entirety, and it is well-established that the disclosure of a
reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific
working examples contained therein. See In re Fracalossi, 681
F.2d 792, 794 n. 1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
For reasons set forth above and in the answer, appellants’
arguments with respect to a lack of suggestion of the claimed
substrate moisture limitations of the claimed process in Erickson
simply miss the mark. We note that the specification evidence
referred to by appellants at pages 6 and 7 of the brief does not
establish quality improvements as argued, much less unexpected
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007