Appeal No. 95-4733
Application No. 08/091,030
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okai
or Rion in view of Dickinson (Answer, pages 4 and 6, a
combination of rejections “C” and “D”). We reverse all of the
examiner’s rejections for reasons which follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, Second Paragraph
It is the examiner’s position that the relative phrase
“greater than” in claims 1 and 8 is indefinite (Answer, page
4). The examiner does not present any reasons for this
statement in the Answer but notes in the final rejection
(Paper No. 4) that “[t]his term [”greater than”] is relative
and has not been defined in the specification.” (Page 2, Paper
No. 4).
Appellant submits that a V50 value (probable ballistic
limit) is a “readily quantifiable property” and there is
absolutely no merit in asserting that the term “greater than”
is indefinite when used as a comparator for the V50 values of
the coated and uncoated steel (Reply Brief, page 3).
The legal standard for definiteness under paragraph two
of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007