Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 10
Application No. 10/458,112
encompasses the specific temperature range claimed in the ‘514 patent of
330 to 450 °C. Given the considerable difference between the claimed
range and the range in the prior art, no reasonable fact finder could
conclude that the prior art describes the claimed range with sufficient
specificity to anticipate this limitation of the claim.”).
Therefore, when we properly construe instant claim 1 in accordance
with the supporting “nanoparticle” definition argued by appellants, we find
that Rizzo’s completely encompassing particle diameter range fails to
describe the instant defined particle diameter range with sufficient specificity
to anticipate the claimed “nanoparticle.” Accordingly, we will reverse the
examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Rizzo.
Because claims 2-4, 8, 9 and 11-17 each depend directly or indirectly upon
claim 1, we will also reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims as
being anticipated by Rizzo.
Claims 29 and 30 (Rizzo)
I(b). We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 30 as
being anticipated by Rizzo. Since appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will consider independent claim 29 as the representative claim
for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
overlap. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir. 2005) citing
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007