In Re Lance G. Peterson and Ioannis Vasatis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting that a prior art reference taught away from a claimed alloy containing rhenium, because, “[wjhile it mentions a preferred alloy that does not contain rhenium, it does not disparage or otherwise discourage the use of alloys containing rhenium” (emphases added)
• affirming obviousness where the applicant claimed an alloy with 1-3% rhenium, yet presented unexpected results only for 2% rhenium, and evidence suggested that 3% rhenium possessed inferior properties
• affirming obviousness where the applicant claimed an alloy with 1-3% rhenium, yet presented unexpected results only for 2% rhenium, and evidence suggested that 3% rhenium possessed inferior properties
• affirming finding by the Board that unexpected results commensurate in scope with claimed range of 1-3% were not shown where unexpected results were only associated with 2%
• recognizing \that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties\ (citing Titanium Metals , 778 F.2d at 783 )
• affirming finding of obviousness where patent applicant claimed alloy with 1% to 3% rhenium and presented unexpected results only for alloy with 2% rhenium, where evidence suggested that alloy with 3% rhenium possessed inferior properties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).