{"section":{"filename":"s2123.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2123","title":"Rejection Over Prior Art’s Broad Disclosure Instead of Preferred Embodiments","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","bytes":64118,"sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d","subsection_count":0,"max_depth":0,"subsections":[]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2123","cases":[{"key":"case:699f.2d1331","slug":"in-re-heck","short_name":"In re Heck","canonical_citation":"In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Patents used as prior art references are not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or the problems addressed; they are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain regardless of what is claimed.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["patents are prior art for all they contain, not just the patentee's own invention"]},{"key":"case:397f.2d1006","slug":"in-re-lemelson","short_name":"In re Lemelson","canonical_citation":"In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 158 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968)","decision_year":1968,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Patents used as references are not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or the problems addressed; they are part of the literature of the art and relevant for all they contain.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["quoting"]},{"key":"case:874f.2d804","slug":"merck-co-v-biocraft-labs-inc","short_name":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A prior art reference may be relied upon for all it reasonably discloses and suggests, including nonpreferred embodiments; a greater-than-additive, synergistic effect may evidence unexpected results but does not necessarily overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["reference relied upon for all it reasonably suggests, including nonpreferred embodiments"]},{"key":"case:412f.3d1319","slug":"upsher-smith-labs-v-pamlab-llc","short_name":"Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC","canonical_citation":"Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 75 USPQ2d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component; thus a claimed composition expressly excluding an ingredient is anticipated by a reference composition optionally including it.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component"]},{"key":"case:150f.3d1354","slug":"celeritas-technologies-ltd-v-rockwell-international-corp","short_name":"Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp.","canonical_citation":"Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","decision_year":1998,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A reference anticipates even if it teaches away from or disparages the claimed invention; whether a reference teaches away is inapplicable to anticipation, and showing a disclosed embodiment to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["a less-than-optimal disclosed embodiment is still anticipatory prior art"]},{"key":"case:440f.2d442","slug":"in-re-susi","short_name":"In re Susi","canonical_citation":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or from nonpreferred embodiments; a minor structural difference from a prior art preferred subgenus, conceded to be of little importance, supports obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not teach away from a broader disclosure"]},{"key":"case:27f.3d551","slug":"in-re-gurley","short_name":"In re Gurley","canonical_citation":"In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","decision_year":1994,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because the prior art describes it as somewhat inferior to another product for the same use; the nature of a teaching away must be weighed in substance.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["an obvious composition is not patentable merely by being described as inferior to another"]},{"key":"case:391f.3d1195","slug":"in-re-fulton","short_name":"In re Fulton","canonical_citation":"In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of those alternatives unless the disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution; disclosure of desirable alternatives does not negate a suggestion to modify.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not teach away from any of them"]}],"statutes":[],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:2131","section_number":"2131","title":"Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2145","section_number":"2145","title":"Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence","exists":true,"mentions":1}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"se_5pftb5nr","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_5pftb5nr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202024","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2123","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2123","section_number":"2123","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Rejection Over Prior Art’s Broad Disclosure Instead of Preferred Embodiments","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","children_ids":["pb_cmaxnw3z","pb_qjnmisza","pb_teq4s7if","pb_xarpxoiw","pb_4xn72fpx","pb_obxkg3ot"]},{"id":"pb_cmaxnw3z","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_cmaxnw3z","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">I.</b><b id=\"\"> PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202024/b.0","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN","host_section_id":"se_5pftb5nr"},{"id":"pb_qjnmisza","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qjnmisza","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202040\">“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” <i>In re Heck,</i> 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216&nbsp;USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting <i> In re Lemelson,</i> 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202040","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5pftb5nr"},{"id":"pb_teq4s7if","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_teq4s7if","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202049\">A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. <i>Merck &amp; Co. v.</i><i>Biocraft Labs., Inc.</i> 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), <i>cert. denied, </i>493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also <i>Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC,</i> 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); <i>Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp.,</i> 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202049","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5pftb5nr"},{"id":"pb_xarpxoiw","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xarpxoiw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202067\">See also <b><a href=\"s2131.html#d0e203351\">MPEP § 2131.05</a></b> and <b><a href=\"s2145.html#d0e212553\">§ 2145</a></b>, subsection X.D., which discuss prior art that teaches away from the claimed invention in the context of anticipation and obviousness, respectively.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"See also MPEP § 2131.05 and § 2145, subsection X.D., which discuss prior art that teaches away from the claimed invention in the context of anticipation and obviousness, respectively.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202067","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5pftb5nr"},{"id":"pb_4xn72fpx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4xn72fpx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">II.</b><b id=\"\"> NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202024/b.2","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART","host_section_id":"se_5pftb5nr"},{"id":"pb_obxkg3ot","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_obxkg3ot","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202082\">Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. <i>In re Susi,</i> 440&nbsp;F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” <i>In re Gurley,</i> 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” <i>Id.</i> at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” <i>In re Fulton,</i> 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73&nbsp;USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202082","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5pftb5nr"},{"id":"cs_hv7cvrfr","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_hv7cvrfr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"In re Heck","all_citations":["699 F.2d 1331","216 USPQ 1038"],"canonical_citation":"In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_bmfcm36g","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_bmfcm36g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006 (CCPA 1968)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"In re Lemelson","all_citations":["397 F.2d 1006","158 USPQ 275"],"canonical_citation":"In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 158 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968)","decision_year":1968,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_cuormx2j","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cuormx2j","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.","all_citations":["874 F.2d 804","10 USPQ2d 1843"],"canonical_citation":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_xresgejx","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xresgejx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC","all_citations":["412 F.3d 1319","75 USPQ2d 1213"],"canonical_citation":"Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 75 USPQ2d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_nozx6zmv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_nozx6zmv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp.","all_citations":["150 F.3d 1354","47 USPQ2d 1516"],"canonical_citation":"Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","decision_year":1998,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_lgcusiz6","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_lgcusiz6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"In re Susi","all_citations":["440 F.2d 442","169 USPQ 423"],"canonical_citation":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_4hgjen7r","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4hgjen7r","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"In re Gurley","all_citations":["27 F.3d 551","31 USPQ2d 1130"],"canonical_citation":"In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","decision_year":1994,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_efjcw2ja","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_efjcw2ja","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"short_name":"In re Fulton","all_citations":["391 F.3d 1195","73 USPQ2d 1141"],"canonical_citation":"In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"se_avdtko4b","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_avdtko4b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"stub-2131","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2131","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2131","section_number":"2131","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2131","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_ve47rry6","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_ve47rry6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"stub-2145","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2145","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2145","section_number":"2145","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2145","children_ids":[]}],"edges":[{"id":"e_bayf7d7o","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qjnmisza","target_id":"cs_hv7cvrfr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":230,"end":240},"pincite":"1332-33","proposition":"patents are prior art for all they contain, not just the patentee's own invention"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202040","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_purtjiwk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qjnmisza","target_id":"cs_bmfcm36g","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 158 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968)","source_offset":{"start":312,"end":326},"pincite":"1009","signal":"plain","parenthetical":"quoting"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202040","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_xqnaknzq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_teq4s7if","target_id":"cs_cuormx2j","properties":{"citation_text":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":156,"end":190},"proposition":"reference relied upon for all it reasonably suggests, including nonpreferred embodiments"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202049","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_l2a7mouu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_teq4s7if","target_id":"cs_xresgejx","properties":{"citation_text":"Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 75 USPQ2d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":282,"end":315},"pincite":"1323","signal":"see_also","parenthetical":"reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202049","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_p7x4tfkl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_teq4s7if","target_id":"cs_nozx6zmv","properties":{"citation_text":"Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","source_offset":{"start":513,"end":572},"pincite":"1361","parenthetical":"The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention","proposition":"a less-than-optimal disclosed embodiment is still anticipatory prior art"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202049","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_45wmywg4","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xarpxoiw","target_id":"se_avdtko4b","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2131.05","target_anchor":"d0e203351","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":23}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202067","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_id7dmmi5","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xarpxoiw","target_id":"se_ve47rry6","properties":{"link_text":"§ 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":28,"end":34}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202067","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_qjs7sbt5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_obxkg3ot","target_id":"cs_lgcusiz6","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":134,"end":144},"proposition":"disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not teach away from a broader disclosure"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202082","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_w26lrsw3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_obxkg3ot","target_id":"cs_4hgjen7r","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":344,"end":356},"pincite":"554","proposition":"an obvious composition is not patentable merely by being described as inferior to another"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202082","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}},{"id":"e_hsgeyaet","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_obxkg3ot","target_id":"cs_efjcw2ja","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":1449,"end":1461},"pincite":"1201","proposition":"mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not teach away from any of them"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2123.html","source_anchor":"d0e202082","source_sha256":"b34fc906f8e08b9bbb41dc1d6a72fe1b4ece4be64a1e9102ccb9f32e2517c61d"}}]}}