Appeal No. 1998-1374
Application No. 08/466,562
ceramic."
Nevertheless, claims 21 through 25 require a "glass-
ceramic" not merely a ceramic. A "glass-ceramic" is a
devitrified or crystallized glass and the examiner has failed
to provide any evidence, as was his burden, which establishes
that a ceramic and a "glass-ceramic" are the same or so
similar that one suggests the other. While Nakatani does
disclose the addition of glasses to their paste, glasses are,
by definition, amorphous and would be expected to possess
different properties than "glass-ceramics."
For all the above reasons, we shall affirm the rejection
of claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but reverse the
rejection of claims 21 through 25.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 3 as failing to comply with 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed. The rejection of
claims 1 through 10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is affirmed. The rejection of claim 21 through 25 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007