Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
specification, describes a subject matter with
sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed
subject matter are distinct. In re Merat, 519 F.2d
1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975).
As we noted, above, with respect to the rejection of § 112,
first paragraph, the claim term “morphology” is often used and
well recognized in the art of polycrystalline materials.
Accordingly, when the claims on appeal refer to a claim
structure requiring a certain morphology, it is our view that
the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter can be
determined with sufficient precision by one of ordinary skill
viewing the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1 through 13 and
19 insofar as they are based on the presence of the term
“morphology” is reversed.
Secondly, the examiner has rejected claim 1 and the
claims that depend thereon for the stated reason that “the
underlying body” in line 8 of claim 1 lacks proper antecedent
basis. A review of the text of claim 1 denotes that claim 1,
in line 4, sets out a “body” having a wear surface. In line
5, there is recited a coating of polycrystalline diamond on
the wear surface of the body. As such, the reference to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007