IN RE: BRANDT, 16-2601, decided March 27, 2018

U.S. Application No. 13/652,858, directed to high density polyurethane construction boards.

“Said coverboard having a density greater than 2.5 pounds per cubic foot and less than 6 pounds per cubic foot” is in claim 1 (page 3).  Prior art G has a coverboard of 6-25 pounds per cubic foot, preferably 8 (pages 3-4).  Prior art L teaches  0.5-10, preferably 1-5, for a material (page 4).  The Examiner notes that prior art G teaches that fillers in the coverboard may cause variations in density and that prior art L teaches material that could be used with a density in the recited range, alleging it as a design choice to use the material and density of prior art L in the coverboard of prior art G  and/or margin of error by the slightest percentage (pages 4-5).  The Federal Circuit indicated that prima facie obviousness is established where the difference in a range is virtually negligible (less than 6 verses 6 pounds per cubic foot) (page 9).  This shifted the burden to applicants to show unexpected results or criticality, which was not done (pages 9-10). 

Hindsight: When claiming a range, try to choose the ranges based on a reason.  This may make a showing of criticality or unexpected results easier.  Use nested or varying ranges to allow for claiming a range spaced from any unknown prior art.  Of course, such varying ranges may detract from the indication of criticality. 

 

Expertise. Quality. Value.

At Lempia Summerfield Katz, we work hard to acquire your patents, trademarks, and copyrights and assist you from the initial application stage to registration processes and through the issuance and return on investment of the protected technology or creative asset.

Share this post