Appeal No. 2001-2557
Application No. 08/888,996
Appealed claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, description requirement. Claims 1-5 and
7-11 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
In addition, claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell and Isenberg. All the
appealed claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Weiman in view of Bothwell and Isenberg.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. It is the
examiner’s position that it is not clear “where the various
ductile metal group members in claim 10 are supported in the
original specification” (page 4 of answer, second paragraph),
namely, stainless steels, iron based alloys, cobalt based alloys,
or nickel based alloys or superalloys. Although appellant
maintains that the present specification discloses and
exemplifies various stainless steels which are, in fact, iron
based alloys, cobalt based alloys, nickel based alloys and
superalloys, it is the examiner’s position that “specific classes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007