Appeal No. 2001-2557
Application No. 08/888,996
present application, the broad invention of a ductile metallic
surrounded by an ionically conductive ceramic matrix. Hence, it
is our view that the alloys recited in claim 10 on appeal are
sub-genuses encompassed by the broader genus originally described
in appellant’s specification. Also, as argued by appellant, the
original specification describes specific alloys that qualify as
the claimed “stainless steel, iron based alloys, cobalt based
alloys, or nickel based alloys or super alloys.” Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under
§ 112, first paragraph.
The examiner also does not find original descriptive support
in the specification for “the temperature limits of claims 1 and
7" (page 4 of answer, second paragraph). Claim 1 recites “less
than 1700ēC”, but claim 7 has no recitation of a temperature.
Claim 9 recites “less than 1550ēC.” Accordingly, we will presume
that the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is directed to claim 9.
Also, we note that appellant has considered the examiner’s
rejection to be directed to claims 1 and 9 (see page 6 of brief,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007