Claims ranges

Prior art discloses range overlapping later claimed range. 

Claimed range falls within Claimed point falls within prior art range. prior art range. 

Claimed range (or point) falls outside prior art range (or point), but is still close. 

FIGURE 8.24 Effect of prior art ranges on later claimed ranges. 

From Figure 8.24, we can discern that if a later claimed range overlaps or falls close to an earlier disclosed range or point, then we need to consider the prior art disclosure for obviousness but not anticipation. Likewise, if the claimed range (or point) falls entirely within the prior art range, then the prior art disclosure will also have to be... 

TABLE 8.1 Comparison of the Claimed Ranges of the Patent Application and the Prior Art Disclosure... 

Determination of Linearity and Range Determine the linearity of an analytical method by mathematically treating test results obtained from analysis of samples with analyte concentrations across the claimed range of the method. The treatment is normally a calculation of a regression line by the method of least squares of test results versus analyte concentrations. In some cases, to obtain proportionality between assays and sample concentrations, the test data may have to be subjected to a mathematical transformation before the regression analysis. The slope of the regression line and its variance (correlation coefficient) provide a mathematical measure of linearity the y-intercept is a measure of the potential assay bias. 

Corti et al. analyzed ranitidine and water in sample tablets [79], Production samples, when made under control, contain a narrow range of values for active concentration. It is then difficult to cull any number of samples to generate a desired range of sample values in the calibration set to cover a 20% (90 to 110% of label claim) range as done for typical HPLC methods. The result is a diminished correlation coefficient due to the small range of values in the calibration set. 

Linearity indicates the ability to produce results that are directly proportional to the concentration of the analyte in samples. A series of samples should be prepared in which the analyte concentrations span the claimed range of the procedure. If there is a linear relationship, test results should be evaluated by appropriate statistical methods. A minimum of five concentrations should be used. 

Initial information about the protein hydration layer came from relaxation studies. Dielectric relaxation (DR) and NMR studies were the first to reveal the existence of water molecules in the restricted environments. Dielectric relaxation measurements show the existence of an additional dispersion in protein solutions with time constants in the 40-50 ps time range (to be contrasted with 8 ps for bulk water), while NMR estimates have varied from system to system, with claims ranging from slow (with lifetimes in excess of 300 ps) to fast (with lifetimes 2-5 ps). The general consensus now appears to be consistent with the DR data. 

Since SMBG and POC systems may use different enzymes, mediators, materials, and measurement methods, it comes as no surprise that the claim ranges with regard to operating temperature, humidity, hematocrit, interference substances, and shelf-life are unique to each particular system. When comparing performance between systems, one should keep in mind these characteristics in order to make a clear one-to-one comparison of performance. 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has predicted that by the next century 50 percent of the workforce will suffer from repetitive strain injuries, (RSIs), which can result in claims ranging from 20,000 to well over 100,000. The demands of the work performed in a warehouse can easily cause RSIs if hazards are not corrected. Every year approximately nineteen million workers suffer disabling injuries from musculoskeletal causes at a cost of 100 billion. 

---