Appeal No. 97-1156
Application 08/192,270
and (E) therein), and 38 to be clearly drawn to a product,
i.e., a ceramic-metal composite assembly. The noted claims
are therefore viewed as definite in meaning.
Turning now to the examiner’s concern regarding claims 40
and 41, we are cognizant that the metallurgical joining means
and the mechanical joining means are further defined therein
as comprising “heating” and “press fitting”, respectively.
Simply stated, we understand this process language in the
context of the product being claimed as denoting the resulting
structure, i.e., a heated joining structure (claim 40) and a
press fit joining structure (claim 41). See In re Thorpe, 777
F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus,
dependent claims 40 and 41 are understood as setting forth
further structural limitations and are definite in meaning.
The anticipation rejection based upon Oda
We reverse this rejection of appellants’ claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
The examiner considers independent claims 30, 31, and 38,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007