Appeal No. 2005-1605
Application No. 10/295,072
(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.”); see also In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1997)(explaining that a claimed invention is rendered prima
facie obvious when the teachings of a prior art reference
discloses a range that touches or overlaps the range
recited in the claim).
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-22 as being obvious
over Moon in view of Donermeyer or Röber.
II. Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Moon in view of Donermeyer or Röber is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007