Appeal 2006-2468
Application 10/149,875
components required by representative claims 1 and 3.4 In this regard,
Seiden discloses a reduced calorie fat composition having weight percent
ranges for the amount of PFAP (about 10 to about 95, preferably about 35 to
about 95, and most preferably about 65 to about 95) and the amount of RCT
(about 5 to about 90, preferably about 5 to about 65, and most preferably
about 5 to about 35) that encompass/overlap the range amounts for those
components as required by the respective representative claims. See, e.g.,
column 10, lines 50-56 and column 12, lines 10-16 of Seiden. In this regard,
representative claim 1 requires about 65 to about 80 weight percent PFAP
and about 20 to about 35 weight percent RCT in the fat composition.
Representative claim 3 requires a fat composition with about 70 to about 80
weight percent PFAP and about 20 to about 30 weight percent RCT therein.
It is well settled that the disclosure of overlapping ranges for each
element in a composition by the prior art renders the claimed composition
prima facie obvious. In this appeal, Seiden discloses ranges for the claimed
components that encompass and substantially overlap the claimed range.
See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1379, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when
the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior
art,” with selection of a narrow range from a somewhat broader range
disclosed in a prior art reference no less obvious than identifying a range that
4 It is undisputed on this record that the PFAP and RCT fall within the scope
of the appealed claims generally and the representative claims specifically.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007