Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F (figure 7), including claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (US 2010/0073594).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki (figure 7) discloses
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2020/0310000).
Regarding claim 1, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a coated article comprising:
a substrate (118; figure 1) having a major surface, the major surface comprising a first portion and a second portion (113 and 115), wherein a first direction that is normal to the first portion of the major surface is not equal to a second direction that is normal to the second portion of the major surface; and
an optical coating (120) disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface, the optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface (130; figure 7).
Hart et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hart et al. is silent regarding the angle and thickness of the coated article. Hart et al. (figures 1-9) teaches the angle between the first direction and the second direction is at least 15 degrees (0 – 60 degrees; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0050); a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 70% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (figure 9); and the coated article exhibits a single side light reflectance of about 3% or less at all wavelengths from 410 nm to at least 1050 nm as measured at the first portion of the major surface at an angle of incidence of 5 degrees (figure 11B; see at least paragraph 0134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated article as taught by Hart et al. in order to achieve durable and/or scratch-resistant optical coatings on non-planar substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 60% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (see at least paragraph 0127).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein: the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 60% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (see at least paragraph 0127); the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by −10<a*<10 and −10<b*−10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by −10<a*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein: the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 60% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion; the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by b*<4 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant; and the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by b*<4 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (see at least paragraph 0127; a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 50% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (see at least paragraph 0127).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 40% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (see at least paragraph 0127).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 35% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion; the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by −10<a*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant; and the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by −10<a*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (see at least paragraph 0127; a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 35% or less than the thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion; the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by −10<b*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant; and the first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by −10<b*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (see at least paragraph 0127; a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses herein the coated article exhibits a single side light reflectance of about 30% or less at all wavelengths from 410 nm to at least 1050 nm as measured at the second portion of the major surface at an angle of incidence of 5 degrees (first-surface reflectance of less than 3% at 100% thickness for all wavelengths from 410 nm to 1000 nm; see at least paragraph 0135).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the coated article exhibits a residual compressive stress of greater than or equal to 700 MPa and an elastic modulus of greater than or equal to 140 GPa (750 MPa or greater or 800 MPa or greater; and Suitable substrates 110 may exhibit an elastic modulus in the range from about 30 GPa to about 120 GPa: see at least paragraphs 0102 and 0112).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the coated article exhibits a residual compressive stress of from about 700 MPa to about 1100 MPa and an elastic modulus of from about 140 GPa to about 200 GPa (750 MPa or greater or 800 MPa or greater; and Suitable substrates 110 may exhibit an elastic modulus in the range from about 30 GPa to about 120 GPa: see at least paragraphs 0102 and 0112).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the coated article exhibits an elastic modulus of from about 140 GPa to about 180 GPa (750 MPa or greater or 800 MPa or greater; and Suitable substrates 110 may exhibit an elastic modulus in the range from about 30 GPa to about 120 GPa: see at least paragraphs 0102 and 0112).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the substrate has a surface compressive stress of from about 200 MPa to about 1200 MPa (750 MPa or greater or 800 MPa or greater; and Suitable substrates 110 may exhibit an elastic modulus in the range from about 30 GPa to about 120 GPa: see at least paragraphs 0102 and 0112) and a depth of compression of from about 5 μm to 150 μm (an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater; see at least paragraph 0146).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the substrate further exhibits a maximum central tension (CT) value from about 80 MPa to about 200 MPa (750 MPa or greater or 800 MPa or greater; and Suitable substrates 110 may exhibit an elastic modulus in the range from about 30 GPa to about 120 GPa: see at least paragraphs 0102 and 0112), and further wherein the substrate has a thickness of about 1.5 mm or less (the substrate can have a physical thickness ranging from about 100 μm to about 5 mm; see at least paragraph 0121).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the substrate has a surface compressive stress of from about 200 MPa to about 400 MPa ( substrate 110 can have a surface CS of 250 MPa or greater; see at least paragraph 0112).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the article exhibits an average failure stress of 700 MPa or greater in a ring-on-ring test with the outer surface of the optical coating structure placed in tension
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 17, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a consumer electronic device, comprising: a housing having a front surface, a back surface, and side surfaces (figures 18A-18B); electrical components provided at least partially with the housing, the electrical components including at least a controller, a memory, and a display, the display being provided at or adjacent the front surface of the housing; wherein the front surface, back surface, or both the front surface and back surface of the housing includes the article of claim 1 (see at least paragraph 128).
Regarding claim 18, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a coated article comprising:
a substrate (118; figure 1) having a major surface, the major surface comprising a first portion and a second portion (113 and 115), wherein a first direction that is normal to the first portion of the major surface is not equal to a second direction that is normal to the second portion of the major surface; and
an optical coating (120) disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface, the optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface (130; figure 7).
Hart et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hart et al. is silent regarding the angle and thickness of the coated article. Hart et al. (figures 1-9) teaches the angle between the first direction and the second direction is at least 30 degrees (0 – 60 degrees; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0050); a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 70% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (figure 9); and wherein the coated article exhibits a photopic average single side light reflectance of about 8% or less as measured at both the first portion and the second portion of the major surface at an angle of incidence of 5 degrees (figure 11B; see at least paragraph 0134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated article as taught by Hart et al. in order to achieve durable and/or scratch-resistant optical coatings on non-planar substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a coated article comprising:
a substrate (118; figure 1) having a major surface, the major surface comprising a first portion and a second portion (113 and 115), wherein a first direction that is normal to the first portion of the major surface is not equal to a second direction that is normal to the second portion of the major surface; and
an optical coating (120) disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface, the optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface (130; figure 7).
Hart et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hart et al. is silent regarding the angle and thickness of the coated article. Hart et al. (figures 1-9) teaches the angle between the first direction and the second direction is at least 15 degrees (0 – 60 degrees; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0050); a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 70% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (figure 9); and the optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface, wherein: a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 70% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion; a first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by b*<2.5 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant; and a first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by b*<2.5 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated article as taught by Hart et al. in order to achieve durable and/or scratch-resistant optical coatings on non-planar substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a coated article comprising:
a substrate (118; figure 1) having a major surface, the major surface comprising a first portion and a second portion (113 and 115), wherein a first direction that is normal to the first portion of the major surface is not equal to a second direction that is normal to the second portion of the major surface; and
an optical coating (120) disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface, the optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface (130; figure 7).
Hart et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hart et al. is silent regarding the angle and thickness of the coated article. Hart et al. (figures 1-9) teaches the angle between the first direction and the second direction is at least 30 degrees (0 – 60 degrees; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0050); a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 70% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (figure 9); and wherein: a first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by b*<4. for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant; and a first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by b*<4. for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated article as taught by Hart et al. in order to achieve durable and/or scratch-resistant optical coatings on non-planar substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Hart et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a coated article comprising:
a substrate (118; figure 1) having a major surface, the major surface comprising a first portion and a second portion (113 and 115), wherein a first direction that is normal to the first portion of the major surface is not equal to a second direction that is normal to the second portion of the major surface; and
an optical coating (120) disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface, the optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface (130; figure 7).
Hart et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hart et al. is silent regarding the angle and thickness of the coated article. Hart et al. (figures 1-9) teaches the angle between the first direction and the second direction is at least 15 degrees (0 – 60 degrees; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0050); a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 70% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (figure 9); wherein: a thickness of the optical coating on the second portion as measured normal to the major surface at the second portion is 50% or less than a thickness of the optical coating on the first portion as measured normal to the major surface at the first portion (0 – 60 degrees; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0050); a first surface reflected color of the coated article at the first portion is defined by −10<a*<10 and −10<b*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the first portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant; and a first surface reflected color of the coated article at the second portion is defined by −10<a*<10 and −10<b*<10 for all angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees as measured normal to the second portion of the major surface, as measured by the reflectance color coordinates in the (L*, a*, b*) colorimetry system under an International Commission on Illumination D65 illuminant (a* may be about 5 or less and b* may be about 5 or less; see at least paragraph 0095). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated article as taught by Hart et al. in order to achieve durable and/or scratch-resistant optical coatings on non-planar substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871