Appeal No. 98-0358
Application 08/660,719
claim 1.
As to each of claims 4 and 5, we perceive the respective
area and porosity ranges thereof to have been obvious matters
for those having ordinary skill when appellants’ invention was
made.
In making this determination we, of course, presume skill on
the part of those practicing this art. See In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Taking
into account the knowledge and understanding of screens as a
well known entity for the reduction of NO by those of
x
ordinary skill in this art, as clearly evident to us from the
evidence of obviousness, we conclude that the claimed
parameters of screen area and porosity would have been factors
of concern in the design of these screens for NO reduction.
x
As such, we are of the view that the presently claimed ranges
for apparent result
effective variables or parameters can fairly be viewed as
simply obvious optimum or working ranges that would have been
readily
obtainable through routine experimentation. See In re Boesch,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007