Appeal No. 2004-0804
Application No. 09/757,886
improve upon what is generally known provides the motivation to
determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the
optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980)(“[D]iscovery of an
optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process
is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it
is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation.”).
The appellants argue that absent any specific teaching in
the prior art as to the dimensions of the downcomer, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use “typical”
prior art lower end cross-sectional area to upper end cross-
sectional area ratios. (Appeal brief, pages 3-5.) For typical
prior art ratios, which are said to be “between 1.5 and 2.0,”
the appellants rely on the textbook reference discussed in the
specification at page 1, lines 21-25.5
The appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Nothing in the
record establishes that the “typical” prior art ratios discussed
in the specification at page 1, lines 21-25 are exclusive
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007