Appeal No. 1998-0601
Application 08/225,322
obviousness absent a showing of criticality and unexpected
results. In addition, we have discussed that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to select the read
level in order to maintain tracking control and focus control
for continuous operation.
Appellant argues that "Miura et al. discloses an
extremely broad range of values to which the current supplied
to the diode could be reduced" (RBr7), which includes an
infinite number of levels. Appellant analogizes the situation
to that in In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir.
1994), which held that "[a] disclosure of millions of
compounds does not render obvious a claim to three compounds,
particularly when that disclosure indicates a preference
leading away from a claimed compounds," id. at 383,
29 USPQ2d at 1552.
We do not consider Baird to be an apt comparison. There
is no question that every value in the range disclosed by
Miura will work and that Appellant's value is within the
range. We consider the situation analogous to cases where the
prior art discloses a range of values and the applicant has
claimed a value within the range.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007