Appeal No. 1998-2702
Application No. 08/466,507
examiner’s positions with regard to the five instances of
alleged indefiniteness are not well taken. Claim 4 states
that the claim is directed to a “formed part made from a
blank,” which is confirmed by the appellant in the Brief (page
8). From our perspective, one of ordinary skill would not
have been confused by the use in claim 4 of the terms “part,”
“blank” and “original blank,” to which the examiner has taken
exception. So too would the artisan have understood that the
phrase “before reversing die pressure” refers to the
preliminary step that occurs prior to the step of pressurizing
the die in the direction in which the finished part will be
formed. What constitutes the “peak” and the “part floor”
recited in claim 5 would have been clear from a reading of the
specification in conjunction with viewing the drawings.
Finally, we agree with the appellant that the use of
“optionally” in claim 7 does not give rise to indefiniteness,
in that what is optional is readily apparent.
The Rejection Of Claim 4 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
This rejection is sustained.
It is uncontroverted that this is a product-by-process
claim (see Brief, page 8). In the case of this type of claim,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007