Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the determination
that the rejections entered by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first and second paragraphs, cannot be sustained.
Furthermore, rejections of claims 1-13 and 15-19 based on
prior art cannot be sustained. However, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 20 based on prior art grounds. Our
reasons for this conclusion follow.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1 through 13 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the examiner has
stated that the specification does not provide descriptive
support for the use of the claim term “morphology.” Appellant
argues that a polycrystalline material of any kind has a
morphology as an inherent feature. Appellant has referred to
the prior art, e.g., the Plano reference which uses the term
“morphology.” Further-more, the appellant has provided a
dictionary definition which is indicative of the use of
morphology as the structure or form of something.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007