In Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991 (Fed.Cir.2006), the Court held that the "considerable difference between the claimed temperature range and the range in the prior art" precluded a finding of anticipation. 441 F.3d at 999. The Court explained that the prior art's teaching of a broad genus (i.e., broad temperature range) does not disclose every species within that genus. Id. In Atofina, the evidence showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed temperature range, which the patentee described as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively. Id. Based on this "considerable difference" between the prior art's broad disclosure and the "critical" temperature range claimed in the patent, the Court held that "no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the prior art describes the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate this limitation of the claim." Atofina, 441 F.3d at 999.