Appeal No. 1998-1125 Page 10
Application No. 08/410,247
is well settled that the disclosure in the prior art of any
value within a claimed range is a complete description and,
thus, an anticipation of the claimed range. In re Wertheim,
541 F.2d 257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976); Ex parte Lee,
31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Additionally, we observe that the azeotropic property simply
does not serve to distinguish over the prior art, when, as
here, it is inherently or intrinsically possessed by the prior
art exemplified composition. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977). Moreover, when a
claimed product appears to be identical or substantially
identical, the burden is on appellants to prove that the
product of prior art does not possess characteristics
attributed to the claimed product. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708-709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The additional arguments set forth in the supplemental
reply briefs regarding the possible presence of water in
forming the foam of Smits II are not persuasive since water is
described by Smits II (column 7, line 55 through column 8,
line 7) as one of several materials used in forming the foam,
not as one of the components of the blowing agent mixture
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007