Appeal No. 96-1641
Application No. 08/225,036
within a claimed range is an anticipation of the claimed
range," Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1993). As we found in our above discussion, Horacek
discloses specific values identical with and falling within
the claimed range. Hence, we conclude that Horacek
anticipates appellants’ claimed invention.
Appellants’ reliance on In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 202
USPQ 175 (CCPA 1979) and Ex parte Westphal, 223 USPQ 630 (Bd.
App. 1983) as authority in support of their position is not
persuasive. As discussed above, Horacek teaches both the
general requirements of the claimed invention, and the
specific limitations required by appellants’ claimed
invention. This degree of identity in disclosure is
sufficient to meet the requirements of anticipation.
With respect to claim 13, it is sufficient to state that
appellants’ argument, that the binder of Horacek is different,
is not persuasive in view of our findings above that the
binder is the same.
The rejection of claim 13 as being unpatentable over
Horacek under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) was withdrawn by the
examiner in Paper No. 12, the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007