atofina, harris, boesch, peterson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Weksler 11135781 - (D) WIEDER 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481) PayPal AKINTOLA, OLABODE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Frank et al 11302313 - (D) BAER 102 102/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 12006079 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 112(2) Dorsey & Whitney / INVENTION SCIENCE FUND KNUTSON, JACOB D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Morini et al 12448288 - (D) McKELVEY 103 LyondellBasell Industries ENG, ELIZABETH

We assume the Examiner did not reject based on anticipation because (1) no embodiment (i.e., example) described by Sacchetti falls within the scope of claim 14 and (2) ranges described by Sacchetti do not fall within the scope of claim 14, albeit the Sacchetti ranges overlap those of claim 14.

Cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999–1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (prior art temperature range of 100 to 500 ºC does not anticipate claimed range of 330 to 450 ºC.; prior art range of 0.001 to 1% oxygen to methylene chloride molar ratio does not anticipate range of 0.1 to 5.0%.; description of a genus in the prior art is not necessarily a disclosure of every species that is a member of that genus).

However, as is apparent from the claim chart, all the elements required by claim 14 are described by Sacchetti and the ranges of amounts of elements and property values described by Sacchetti overlap those of claim 14. Overlapping ranges establish the necessary prima facie case in the application on appeal. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a prima facie case of obviousness arises when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 275 (CCPA 1980) (overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (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).

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2131.03

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2144.05

Boesch, In re, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 716.02(b) , 2144.05

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 716.02(d) , 2144.05

1768 Ex Parte AVTOMONOV et al 12428256 - (D) McKELVEY 103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Gannon et al 12331085 - (D) HORVATH 102/103 Morris & Kamlay LLP/ 030120-M CASANOVA, JORGE A

2196 Ex Parte Okmianski 11264188 - (D) BAER 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM, LLP MILLS, PAUL V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Cai et al 13044742 - (D) NEW 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M