Appeal No. 1998-1416 Page 6
Application No. 08/062,736
anticipation of the claimed range. See 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). Moreover, a prior art
range which touches or substantially overlaps a claimed range
anticipates, prima facie, the claimed range. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945-46
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Consequently, the arguments put forth by
appellants in the brief and reply brief are not persuasive to the
extent that they urge that there is a difference in appellants’
coating thickness over that disclosed by Jones. Appellants also
contend that various unclaimed features such as a particular
degree of water or oxygen permeability reduction or the moving of
the substrate while coating differentiate the claimed invention
over Jones. Of course, arguments directed at such unclaimed
limitations are not well taken.
Since claims 18, 19 and 25 have been appropriately rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, any evidence alleging unexpected results
is irrelevant. See In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007