Appeal No. 95-4203
Application 07/793,889
requirement. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The
examiner argues lack of literal support for the claimed molecular weight range and
provides no reasons why a description not in ipsis verbis is insufficient. The examiner
also argues that the claimed range was deemed by appellants to be critical. However, the
examiner does not provide any evidence to support this argument. In our view, the
disclosure of molecular weight ranges of 40,000 - 130,000 and 60,000 - 90,000 is
sufficient to establish that the range of 60,000 - 130,000 is part of appellants’ invention. In
re Blaser, 556 F.2d 534, 538, 194 USPQ 122, 125 (CCPA 1977); In re Eickmeyer, 602
F.2d 974, 981-982, 202 USPQ 655, 662-663 (CCPA 1979); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
257, 265, 191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976).
II.
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as unpatentable over
Bauer in view of Santorelli and Crivello.
After careful consideration of the arguments of appellants and the examiner
and of the record before us, we find ourselves in agreement with examiner that appellants’
claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention over the applied prior art. Accordingly, the aforementioned rejection
will be affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007