Mouttet cited in Ex parte Hosoi

Ex parte Hosoi


Like our appellate reviewing court, “[w]e will not read into a
reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.”
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, “just because better
alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination
is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2012).


Note



In the request for an expanded panel, Appellants recognize that the
decision was not designated as “Informative” or “Precedential” (Req. Reh’g
19). Appellants assert, however, that an expanded panel is warranted, as the
decision is now “citable authority and will likely have a significant impact
upon the examiners in the Patent Corps that examine patent applications that
involve this issue” (id.). We do not agree. If we were to accept Appellants’
reasoning, every request for rehearing would be entitled to an expanded
panel.