Appeal No. 2000-0920
Application No. 08/829,034
Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). In
other words, does a claim reasonably apprise those of skill in
the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31
USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The examiner contends that the use of the virgule “/” in
claims 8 and 36, as in the term “porous ceramic matrix/molten
metal interface” appearing in these claims, is not understood.
We agree with appellant, however, that the meaning of the term in
question would be reasonably clear to those of skill in the art,
especially when read in light of the specification, which makes
clear that the “interface” in question is the common boundary
between the porous ceramic matrix and the infiltrated molten
metal.
The examiner further contends that the use of the word
“allow” in claim 38 renders the claim language “grammatically
awkward” (answer, page 4). While we do not necessarily disagree
with the examiner, we think the claim is definite in that the
skilled artisan would recognize that the word intended is
“alloy.” In the event of further prosecution, this informality
is deserving of correction.
In light of the above, the standing rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, will not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007