Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
Obata et al. (Obata)2
(Japanese Kokai) 2-192483 July 30, 1990
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal.
Claims 1 through 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, inasmuch as the specification does not
provide descriptive support for the term “morphology.”
Claims 1 through 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. According to
the examiner, it is unclear what is meant by the term
“morphology” as it is used throughout the claims on appeal.
Additionally, the examiner states that the “underlying body”
limitation of claim 1, line 8, lacks proper antecedent basis
and the term “individual crystallites” in claims 13 and 19
lacks proper antecedent basis.
Our understanding of this reference is by virtue of an English2
language translation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007