Appeal No. 1996-2530
Application 08/246,324
by the presently claimed process.
Examiner's Answer, p. 6. As we understand it, examiner
is arguing that the claimed making and recovering of a
powder is prima facie obvious over Wood's structure
because:
Wood may be teaching a so-called "powder";
Even if Wood teaches a structure and not a powder,
per se, Wood's structure could be considered a particle
(i.e., part of a powder); or,
Even if Wood teaches a structure that is not a particle,
Wood's structure could be converted into a powder.
Examiner's first argument depends on what is meant
by "powder" and "structure." In this regard,
[i]t is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969), and that claim
language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). We therefore turn to appellants'
specification to assist us in understanding the meaning
of the term "powder." According to the specification
[t]he powders produced in accordance with this
process are high purity, uniform, agglomerate-free,
submicron or nanometer size, single or
multicomponent ceramic/metal powders. Powders
produced in accordance with this process range in
size from about 2 nanometers to about 0.99 microns.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007