Appeal No. 94-3990
Application No. 08/038,033
but what meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would impart
to the claim language when it is reasonably read in light of
the specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Under this standard we do not
subscribe to the examiner's position that the skilled artisan
would be confused as to whether the term "continuous" could
reasonably be interpreted as "the method of application (in a
single continuous application process), the appearance of the
original coating (not striped or non-uniform in appearance),
the smoothness of the original coating (lack of scratches), or
something else entirely" (page 8 of Answer).
We also disagree with the examiner that the language
"toxic conditions" of claim 19 is vague and indefinite. The
ordinary meaning of the term "toxic" is poisonous, and we
simply fail to find any indefiniteness in defining a solution
comprising chromic acid and cyanide, as well as material in
contact with such solution, as toxic. While the examiner
explains that "[t]here is no clarification as to how dangerous
the material is" (page 8 of Answer), the examiner has not
established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
any difficulty in specifically identifying the danger
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007