Appeal No. 2005-0537
Application No. 08/925,985 Page 9
metal or a metal compound may be considered to be a metallic
material. How one of ordinary skill in the art would grade
purity of metallic materials or differentiate a pure from an
impure metallic material is not developed on this record.
Moreover, as far as representative claim 4 is concerned, no
numeric value(s) or other clear definition for determining what
characteristic minimum weight percent or volume of aluminum is
required in a material such that the material is a “pure
aluminum” has been established on this record. As we pointed out
above, the evidence of record does not reflect that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “pure
aluminum” connotes a material having a certain weight percent
aluminum content. Similarly, with regard to claims 9 and 31,
the term “99.999% pure aluminum” does not clearly furnish a
definition of purity. Rather, the term employed in those claims
raises further issues because it is not clear what the percent
value employed in those claims represents when it is followed by
the term “pure aluminum.” For example, if we were to speculate
that appellants intended to use a definition of “pure” as meaning
“free from an adulterant,” and were we to speculate that the
99.999% value employed in claim 9 represented a weight percent
value, then we would understand that claim would require use of a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007