Appeal No. 97-3290
Application 08/465,896
537 F.2d 498, 503, 190 USPQ 214, 218 (CCPA 1976). If the
number of inoperative combinations becomes significant, and in
effect forces one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment
unduly in order to practice the claimed invention, the claims
might indeed be invalid. See Atlas Powder Co. v. E. I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576-77, 224 USPQ 409,
414 (Fed. Cir. 1984). An appellant must also demonstrate that
any range recited in claims reasonably bounds the area within
which satisfactory results could be produced by ordinary
design skill, i.e., an appellant must prove that there are
embodiments to be found, not only near those specifically
disclosed, but at various points throughout the claimed range
which would be operative. See In re Cook, 439 F.2d 730, 735,
169 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, appellant relies upon an “Odor
Perception Test” and a “Surface-Active Agent Effectiveness
Test” (specification, page 12) to determine whether a specific
surface-active agent is effective to reduce the odor of urine.
According to appellant, samples to be tested are provided to a
“panel of two specialists” who independently rank the urine-
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007