Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
underlying body in claim 8 can be readily understood as
referring to the body of line 5 which underlies the
polycrystalline diamond film. Accordingly, we are of the view
that the subject matter of claim 1 can be clearly understood
in relation to the term “underlying body” as it appears in
line 8. Consequently, the rejection of claims 1 through 13
based on the lack of antecedent basis of the term “underlying
body” is reversed.
Thirdly, the examiner has rejected claims 13 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the reason that the
term “individual crystallites” in claims 13 and 19 is said to
lack a proper antecedent basis. Here again, we are in
agreement with the appellant who states that a polycrystalline
film such as is claimed in claim 1 would of necessity be
composed of individual crystallites. Furthermore, we take
official notice of the dictionary definition of the term
“crystallite” as “a single
grain in a polycrystalline medium.” Examined in this way,3
it is clear that the appellant is correct in the use of the
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, G. & C. Merrium Co.,3
Springfield, MA (1971).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007