Appeal No. 2001-1142
Application No. 09/065,143
outlet apertures, as shown at 74, 76 and 78, for example,
axially extend in the flow direction to provide the desired
openings and pressure drop.
Thus, we conclude that mere optimization of result effective
variables, such as cross-sectional dimensions and areas of at
least one exit of the outlet and the apertures of the gate bar,
of the system described in Fiorentini would have been well within
the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). This is
especially true since Fiorentini, like the claimed invention, is
directed to “production of soft, low density foam, with a very
homogeneous cell structure, free from large bubbles, pinholes and
visible defects.” Compare Fiorentini, column 3, lines 1-4 and
29-35, with the appellants’ arguments at page 5 of the Brief. As
stated by our reviewing court in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990):
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 . . . .
These cases have consistently held that in such a
situation, the applicant must show that the particular
range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to
the prior art range. [Citations omitted.]
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007