Appeal No. 1999-2403
Application 08/576,185
October 31, 1995, and does indicate within its four corners that
the elements recited in questioned dependent claims 18-21 were
then known in the art anyway. The discussion at columns 1-3 of
this reference indicates that it was known in the art to utilize
titanium, molybdenum or graphite as a material (claim 18) which
was non-wettable by solder thus permitting its release when
heated. This discussion in the short paragraph bridging columns
7 and 8 indicates that the composition of the solder was known in
the art. As such, the temperature necessary to permit reflow
operation as set forth in dependent claims 19-21 was a well-known
physical property in the art as well. Moreover, the examiner’s
reliance upon Kushima indicates as well that all these features
were known in the art as of its patent date of March 6, 1990 with
an effective filing date of June 3, 1988.
When all this is considered in its entirety, we conclude
that the specification as filed has reasonably conveyed to us
that appellants implicitly had possession of the subject matter
of dependent claims 18-21 on appeal when taken from an artisan’s
perspective. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 18-21
under the written description portion of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
We also reverse the rejections of claims 14 and 18-21 under
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007