Appeal No. 1998-3367
Application No. 08/545,717
Based on the above teachings of Gipson, we are convinced
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that
there is a correlation between the thickness, and thus the
stiffness, of the waist belt and wearer comfort. That is, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized waist belt
thickness, and thus stiffness, to be a result effective
variable with respect to wearer comfort. Generally, it is
considered to have been obvious to develop workable or even
optimum ranges of such variables. See, for example, In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In
re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8-9 (CCPA 1977); In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The issue in the present case, where the patentability of the
claims is predicated on the particular range of a parameter,
is similar to the patentability issue in In re Woodruff, 919
F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In
that case, the Court stated:
The law is replete with cases in which
the difference between the claimed
invention and the prior art is some range
or other variable within the claims
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007