Appeal No. 96-1145
Application 08/203,768
Cir. 1992). The examiner argues that "[i]n
claim 26, ‘for the temperature gradient’ is unclear since the
gradient is only a mathematical construct and the phrase
appears unnecessary" (answer, page 3). The examiner also
argues that "temperature gradient" itself is unclear (answer,
page 5).
The examiner’s arguments are not persuasive because the
examiner has not carried his initial burden of providing
evidence or sound technical reasoning which shows that due to
the presence of the phrase, "for the temperature gradient",
appellants’ claim 26 would not have set out and circumscribed
a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity
to one of ordinary skill in the art who interpreted the claim
in view of appellants’ specification and the prior art.
Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 13, 16, 20, 22 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yazu, claims 13, 16,
18-22 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007