Appeal No. 1996-1782
Application 08/131,036
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549,
551, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976). We do not find in
the specification any indication that the term “about” applies
only to “5” and not to “70”. Thus, we consider the upper
limit of appellants’ recited first stage conversion to be
about 70 wt%. We also do not find in the specification any
indication that example 2, wherein the first stage conversion
is 77.1 wt%, falls outside the scope of appellants’ claim 1.
When we give appellants’ claim 1 its broadest reasonable
interpretation in view of the specification, we conclude,
therefore, that the upper limit of the first stage conversion
encompasses a conversion of 75 wt%. Accordingly, we find that
the process recited in appellants’ claim 1 is anticipated by
comparative example 3 of Nakasuga ‘981. Because anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness, see In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947,
950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974), we affirm the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Even if there is some difference between “about 70” and
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007