Appeal No. 1999-2703
Application No. 08/772,068
satisfying each and every element of the claimed invention"
(footnote omitted). Lee, 31 USPQ2d at 1111. Instead, Hamaguchi
discloses a range of thicknesses from which a skilled artisan
may select a value. Hamaguchi does not disclose any more
significance for one value, such as the lower boundary, than for
any other value. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the
art would believe all of the values to be of equal consequence.
As such, I find no basis for the majority's interpretation that
Hamaguchi's disclosed range is a specific disclosure for a
particular value (i.e., 3 mm) in the absence of any examples,
embodiments, or description that would lead the skilled artisan
to that value.
I would agree that a disclosed example or "single
embodiment of broadly claimed subject matter constitutes" an
anticipation. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 970, 169 USPQ 795,
797 (CCPA 1971). Further, I would agree that "the disclosure in
the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an
anticipation of the claimed range." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976). See also Titanium
Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ
773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d at
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007