Appeal 2007-1170
Application 10/971,698
skill and insight for the ordinary worker in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. __, __, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).
The minimum ratio of volumes calculated here, 12.5:1, is a factor
of 1.6 smaller than the recited ratio of 20:1, giving for the moment no weight
to the term "approximately." Under these conditions, a container having an
interior height of 12.5 mm × 1.6 = 20 mm would meet the volume ratio
requirements of the instant claims. Allowing the length and width of the
baffle to be 90% of the length and width of the container, respectively, to
permit easy insertion of the baffle into the container, the volume ratio is
given by:
Lc × Wc × Hc
(0.9)Lb × (0.9)Wb × Hbc
an increase by a factor of 1/.81 ≈ 1.2. This results in a volume ratio
of 15.4:1, which differs from the required factor of 20:1 by a factor of
about 1.3. Under these conditions, a container having an interior height of
12.5 mm × 1.3 ≈ 16.3 mm —only about 4 mm greater than the minimum
height of the container of 12.5 mm— would meet the volume ratio recited
in the instant claims. As already indicated, these variations in the
dimensions of the baffle and of the container arise purely from the necessity
of fitting the baffle into the container and from providing some head-room
over the powder charge to allow for the vaporization of the sample to allow,
in the words of Freeman 013, formation of a vapor cloud "uniformly though
out the space between the baffle member 50 and the container 30." The
magnitude of these variations are sufficiently minor that we must ask, as
directed by the Court, "whether the improvement [here, the recited volume
ratio of 20:1] is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013