Appeal No. 95-2035
Serial No. 08/083,864
pages 4-6 and 8). However, claims in a patent application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification during prosecution of a patent application. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appellants do not point to where the
specification or the file history of this application establishes that the claim language "about" only
modifies the lower limit of a recited range. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems Inc.,
15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, we agree with the examiner
that "about" modifies the entire recited range (Answer page 8). In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (a carbon monoxide concentration of "about 1-5%”
does allow for concentrations slightly above 5%). Furthermore, a claim covering several compositions
is "anticipated" if any one of the compositions is in the prior art. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Cases where the claimed ranges
"overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art may be patentable if the applicant can show
criticality in the claimed range by evidence of unexpected results". In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976). Appellants have not made such a showing. Therefore, we
find (1) that the polydispersity index of "at least about 8" of claim 1 is described by Bailey, and (2) that
a polydispersity index of "about 18" (claim 5), "about 17" (claim 6), or "18" (claim 12) "reads on"
Bailey's polydispersity index of 20.
Appellants argue Bailey cannot anticipate the claimed blend because Bailey fails to disclose
either the melt flow ratios recited in claims 1, 5 and 6 or the examiner's method of calculating melt flow
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007