Appeal No. 97-0268
Application No. 07/991,872
dehydrogenation of the type disclosed by Miller. Secondly,
the appellant's nonobviousness position, with respect to the
here
claimed silica to alumina mole ratio specifically, is
unpersuasive because it is contrary to patentee's express
teaching of a ratio range which overlaps that defined by the
independent claim on appeal. Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105,
1107
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993). Indeed with regard to this
ratio,
the Miller disclosure of values within the here claimed range
is
considered to be an anticipation of this claimed range. Ex
parte
Lee, 31 USPQ2d at 1106. Finally, concerning this last
mentioned point, we emphasize that the question raised by the
appellant as to whether the Miller reference teaches away from
the here claimed ratio is simply inapplicable to an
anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell
International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007