Appeal No. 95-4407 Page 3
Application No. 08/124,834
as originally filed. The original disclosure does teach that
the surface of the metal has a uniform, small grain size to
resist corrosion (see pages 19, 20 and 43). Since the "uniform
grain size" (claim 70) and "uniform . . . grains" (claim 76)
find literal support in the appellants' specification as
originally filed, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
70 and 76 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
Accordingly, our interpretation of "uniform grain size" (claim
70) and "uniform
. . . grains" (claim 76) to mean that all the grains in the
metal are uniform (i.e., always the same, unvarying, without
variation) found in footnote 4 (p. 5) of our decision is
withdrawn.
The second argument (pp. 3-5) raised by the appellants is
that term "uniform grain size throughout the metal" (claims 52
and 62) would have been understood by one skilled in the art of
metallurgy. In that regard, the appellants do not agree with
our definition of "uniform" to mean always the same, unvarying,
without variation. The appellants argue (p. 4) that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007