Appeal 2006-2468
Application 10/149,875
generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed
set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215, 219 (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 U.S.P.Q. 233, 235 (C.C.P.A. 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.”).
In light of the above, Appellants’ argument (Br. 7) that Seiden
provides fat composition Examples that have PFAP/RCT ratio’s outside the
claimed ranges set forth in the representative claims is unpersuasive of the
lack of a prima facie case of obviousness made out by the evidence
furnished by the Examiner. Indeed, as is generally the case and for the
reasons advanced above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not view the
teachings of Seiden as being limited to compositions set forth in the
Examples therein. After all, it is axiomatic that a reference must be
considered in its entirety, and it is well established that the disclosure of a
reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein.
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n. 1, 215 U.S.P.Q. 569, 570 n.1
(C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 U.S.P.Q. 278, 280
(C.C.P.A. 1976).
Appellants (Br. 7) assert that Seiden does not teach or suggest stool
consistency benefits that attend consumption of foods including a fat
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007