Appeal No. 2005-0846
Application No. 09/981,339
regard to the rejection based upon Duvall or EP, we conclude that
the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
which is not outweighed by evidence of nonobviousness relied upon
by the appellant.
The specific basis for our conclusion with regard to each
rejection is as follows:
REJECTION (1)
We affirm the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for failure to comply with the written
description requirement.
The question in dispute is whether the disclosure in
appellant’s specification of a stabilizer composition with a
mixture of zinc compounds in the range of “from about 0.5 to
about 75%” supports the narrower range recited in claim 35 of
“from greater than about 12.5 wt % to 75 wt %,” within the
context of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Appellant
concedes that the lower limit of the narrower range, i.e.,
“greater than about 12.5 wt %,” was not explicitly disclosed in
the original specification and claims.
To support the proposition that the original disclosure of a
broader range may support the recitation of a narrower range,
even though the narrower range had not been explicitly disclosed,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007