Appeal No. 95-4984
Application No. 08/038,369
versus time of heating for which the metal article retains a
percentage of its non-heated tensile and yield strength
characteristics." According to page 8 of appellants'
specification:
The experimentally or otherwise empirically obtained
data includes data that predicts the effects of the
predetermined preheat and cure cycles high-limit-of-
heat-load-temperatures, the first predetermined
period of time and the second predetermined period
of time. The time and temperatures are selected
such that the mechanical properties of the alloy are
not degraded during the coating process.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Claim 15 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.2
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Okano and Stueke.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 15
under § 112, first paragraph. It is well settled that the3
2The Examiner's Answer only states an objection to the
specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
However, since both appellants and the examiner have fully
briefed the issue as if the examiner finally rejected claim 15
under § 112, first paragraph, we consider the omission to be
an oversight by the examiner, and we will decide the propriety
of a formal rejection based on the examiner's objection.
3Although the examiner refers to the description
requirement in the statement of the objection, it is clear
from the examiner's criticisms that the examiner is relying
upon the enablement section of § 112, first paragraph. Since
appellants have responded to the objection in like terms, we
will consider the examiner's objection/rejection to be based
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007