Appeal 2007-2893
Application 10/818,885
55-90% (Park), or “substantially”/“not completely” (Proctor) filled with a
heat-transfer oil. As Park explains, and would be obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, some volume in the sealed cavity must remain
unfilled to accommodate for the expansion of silicon oil [(or other heat-
transfer material)] when exposed to heat” (Park, col. 4, ll. 46-47).
Accordingly, the evidence establishes that the volume of heat-transfer
material inserted into the sealed cavity is within the range of from about
55% to something less than 100% of the volume of the sealed cavity.
“Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum
combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315
F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation.’” (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105
USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In our opinion, the amount of the sealed
cavity’s volume that is to be left for the expansion of the heat-transfer
material is well within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in this art to
determine by routine optimization.
We recognize Appellant’s assertion that by filling the cavity of the
claimed container “‘to at least 95% of the volume’ . . . leaves almost no
room for boiling as there is no space for any build up of pressure to occur”
(Br. 5). We, however, find no evidence on this record to suggest that a
liquid filling a sealed container to its capacity or slightly less than its
capacity will not, upon heating to its boiling point, expand and build up
pressure within the sealed container. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013