Appeal No. 96-1145
Application 08/203,768
ordinary skill in the art, use of a plurality of alternating
zones of carbon-rich and carbon-lean metallic solvent
extending from the carbon source to the seed particles as
recited in appellants’ only independent claim (26).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 13-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
As for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the relevant inquiry is whether the claim language,
as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art in light of appellants’ specification and the prior
art, sets out and circumscribes a particular area with a
reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). As with any ground
of rejection, the examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie cases of unpatentability. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007