Appeal No. 2001-1904
Application 09/240,450
Hence, we agree with the examiner’s interpretation of Blong.
Because Blong does teach an amount of up to 15 weight percent,
and because appellant’s claim recites “the vinylidene fluoride
comprises at least 15 weight percent”, Blong overlap’s the amount
claimed in appellant’s claim 1. We note that a claimed invention
is rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of a prior art
reference that discloses a range that touches the range recited
in the claim. In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549,
553 (CCPA 1974). See also, In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Hence, we
determine that the value disclosed in Blong renders obvious
appellant’s recited range.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the examiner, independent
claims 10 and 16 do not require a particular amount of vinylidene
fluoride, and hence Blong also meets the limitations of these
claims.1 Based upon the fact that the claims stand or fall with
claim 10, appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1 have no import.
See footnote 1. However, we have addressed the arguments raised
by appellants because appellants arguments focus on claim 1 only.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1,
8-14, 16, 21, and 22.
1 We note that on page 9 of the brief, appellant states that claims 1 and 3-22
stand or fall together. Hence, we only need to consider claim 10, the
broadest claim on appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2000).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007