Appeal 2006-2130
Application 10/236,111
Appellant argues that the most preferred range of monounsaturated
fatty acids (MUFAs) disclosed by Schul has an upper limit of 75 percent
MUFAs, which would represent a value of oleic acid content outside the
claimed range. Such argument is unpersuasive in that Schul’s teachings are
not limited to the most preferred range described therein. 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). In this regard, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each
reference for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including
not only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of ordinary
skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966); and In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In the case before us, there is ample direction in the applied prior art
for reasons set forth above and in the Answer that would have suggested the
use of an ester moiety with an oleic acid content within the claimed range in
formulating the sterol ester composition of Schul. In this regard, the mere
fact that Schul may suggest sterol ester compositions having an oleic acid
content outside of the here claimed oleic acid content range does not detract
from Schul’s teachings using sterol ester compositions that include oleic
acid moiety contents within the here claimed range. Indeed, Schul (para.
0017) notes expected health benefits are associated with high levels of
MUFAs. While solubility of the sterol compositions is a concern noted by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007