Appeal No. 1996-4058
Application No. 07/837,619
a specimen “was exposed to 1.0 atmosphere oxygen at 1550EC.”
These excerpts provide ample basis for “said alloy being
resistant to oxidation at 1550EC,” at issue before us. Based
on our considerations, we further find ourselves in agreement
with appellants for reasons advanced in their Brief that one
skilled in the art would have recognized in the original
patent specification a disclosure of the now claimed subject
matter. See Brief, page 5.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish by evidence or reason that the appealed claims do
not comply with § 112, written description requirement,
because one of ordinary skill in this art would have
recognized in the disclosure a description of the alloys
encompassed by the appealed claims through the use of the
term, “said alloy being resistant to oxidation at 1550EC.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007