recognizing that “ranges which overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art may be patentable if the applicant can show criticality in the claimed range by evidence of unexpected results”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “ranges which overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art may be patentable if the applicant can show criticality in the claimed range by evidence of unexpected results”
- affirming in relevant part that a prima facie case had been made out regarding certain pro- cess claims
- holding that “[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others”
- ruling that written description of broad range of characteristics adequately supported claims to a narrower range
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BALDWIN, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with Judge Miller’s treatment of claims 17-20 and 29. Otherwise, I join the majority opinion.