Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 19
Application No. 09/155,740
ranging from 0.60 to 0.85, a water activity range that overlaps
the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.65. In this regard, it is well
settled that when ranges recited in a claim overlap with ranges
disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness
typically exists and the burden of proof is shifted to the
applicants to show that the claimed invention would not have been
obvious. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30, 65 USPQ2d
1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1469-70, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Consequently, we shall also affirm the examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19, on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reznik in view of
Hsieh and Savage is affirmed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007