Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
coating defined by a three layer stack, with an outer third layer
having a sheet resistivity of less than 200 ohms per square.
As properly determined by the examiner (the Answer, page 6), the
phrase “a sheet resistivity of at least about 200 ohms per
square” recited in claim 10 embraces “a sheet resistivity of less
than 200 ohms per square” in Kulhman, e.g., a sheet resistivity
of 199.9999 ohms per square, since the term “about” as used by
the appellants permit some tolerance. See In re Pappas, 214 F.2d
172, 176-77, 102 USPQ 298, 301 (CCPA 1954); In re De Vaney, 185
F.2d 679, 683, 88 USPQ 97, 101 (CCPA 1950); In re Ayers, 154 F.2d
182, 185, 69 USPQ 109, 112 (CCPA 1946).
In any event, from our perspective, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ, inter alia, the claimed
sheet resistivity due to its closeness to Kuhlman’s sheet
resistivity, with a reasonable expectation of successfully
obtaining the same or similar utilities. In re Peterson, 315
F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773,
779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“We have also held that a prima facie case
of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art
range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skill in
the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007