Appeal No. 1998-0239
Application No. 08/279,907
Since it is well settled that claim language is not to be read
in a vacuum but in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner 2
has made the case why the rejection is not sustainable.
Although the examiner has set forth a scenario at pages 10-11
of the Answer how different calculations can result in
different values, the examiner has not established that the
criticized claim language would be indefinite to one of
ordinary skill in the art when read in light of appellants'
specification.
The examiner's § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claim 4 is based on the indefiniteness of "the particles"
appearing in the last line, i.e., it is not clear whether "the
particles" is referring to the high-fusing temperature metal
particles, the low-fusing temperature metal particles, the
carbonaceous particles, or the combination of all three
particles. We find, however, no response by appellants to
this rejection in their brief, and the examiner states at page
8 of the Answer that "[t]he examiner notes that no argument
2 In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007