Appeal No. 95-4733
Application No. 08/091,030
§ 112 is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in
the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31
USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The definiteness of the
language employed must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and the
application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.”
In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA
1976). The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability rests with the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We determine that the examiner has not met this initial
burden. The examiner has not presented any reasoning or
evidence why one of ordinary skill in this art would not have
been apprised of the scope of the appealed claims. The
examiner has not presented any reasoning or evidence why the
artisan would not have been able to compare the V50 values of
a steel element alone with the fused glass steel composite
material and determine if the composite material had a V50
value “greater than” the steel element alone. Although the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007