Ex parte HEIMBURGER et al. - Page 6



                    Appeal No. 1999-0959                                                                                               
                    Application No. 08/415,166                                                                                         

                           Appellants rely on the rationale of In re Wertheim, supra, as “clearly                                      
                           applicable here.”  Appellants urge that if a disclosure of 25-60%                                           
                           solids content taught those skilled in the art that 35-60% was part of                                      
                           the invention in Wertheim, although the latter range was not                                                
                           expressly mentioned therein, then appellants’ disclosure of 60° C to                                        
                           200° C in [the specification] would likewise teach 80° C to 200° C                                          
                           as part of appellants’ invention.  We agree with appellants that                                            
                           Wertheim is controlling on this point.                                                                      
                    Id.                                                                                                                
                           In the present case, the specification discloses use of calcium ions at a                                   
                    concentration of 1 -50 mM and use of chelating agents at a concentration of 1-10                                   
                    mM.  See page 4, lines 28-29, and page 5, lines 17-19.  The combination of 25                                      
                    mM calcium and 5 mM EDTA (chelating agent) is disclosed to be “particularly                                        
                    suitable.”  Page 5, lines 20-21.  The claims recite calcium at 1-30 mM (claims 3,                                  
                    6-8, 11-18, and 21) or 25-30 mM (claim 5), and a chelating agent at 1 -7 mM (all                                   
                    but claims 20 and 221).                                                                                            
                           Thus, as in Wertheim, the specification discloses a broader range that                                      
                    encompasses the claimed range and expresses a preference for one or more                                           
                    specific values within the claimed range.  Under the rationale of Wertheim and                                     
                    Blaser, the instant specification adequately describes the ranges recited in the                                   
                    claims on appeal.  That is, the specification reasonably conveys to the skilled                                    
                    artisan that Appellants had possession, at the time the application was filed, of                                  
                    the invention now claimed.  Such a disclosure satisfies the written description                                    

                                                                                                                                       
                    1 Claim 22 is limited to 25 mM calcium and 5 mM chelating agent, both of which the examiner has                    
                    conceded to be adequately supported by the specification.  See the Examiner’s Answer, page 3                       
                    (“Examples show support for 25 mmol/l calcium ions.“) and page 4 (“[T]he specification . . . shows                 
                    1-20, preferably 5[ ]mmol/l” of EDTA.”).  Claim 22 therefore should not have been included in this                 
                    rejection.                                                                                                         

                                                                   6                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007