Appeal No. 2005-1104
Application No. 09/795,211
argue that boric acid, calcium formate and 1,2-propanediol are
taught as optional ingredients by B-F ‘562 (Brief, page 12; Reply
Brief, page 3). Appellants further argue that B-F ‘562 fails to
disclose a composition comprising all five components in the
specific amounts as recited by the claim (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not well taken. Although the boric
acid, propanediol and other stabilizers are disclosed as optional
(see col. 21, ll. 20-25 and 56-60, and example 9), B-F ‘562
specifically teaches the use of these well known stabilizers and
exemplifies the combination of ingredients as claimed (see example
9 at col. 30). All five claimed components are disclosed in
example 9 (col. 30, ll. 1-20), including ranges of each component
that overlap with the ranges set forth in claim 1 on appeal.2 “In
cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court
have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. [Citations
omitted].” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30, 65 USPQ2d 1379,
2
2Although the examiner does not present any findings
regarding the amounts of calcium ion in the composition of
example 9 of B-F ‘562, we determine that the amount of calcium
ion provided by the 0-0.2% calcium formate taught by B-F ‘562
would provide amounts of calcium ion per liter of detergent
solution within the range claimed by appellants (see claim 1 on
appeal and Table 2 on page 12 of the specification). We note
that appellants do not specifically dispute that the amount of
calcium ion taught by B-F ‘562 differs from the claimed range.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007