Appeal No. 1997-0359
Application No. 08/173,485
claim 23, the ‘degree of supersaturation’ is defined by [an]
equation, yet possible values thereof (limits, or units) are
not set forth . . . . Particularly, the question of the
correctness of the definition, or the meaning, of the term
‘degree of supersatura-tion’ exists.” Appellants further
elaborate on the definition of the term "degree of
supersaturation". They reproduce in the brief materials from
the specification relating to the definition of
supersaturation and explain how such a term is consistent with
the conventional definition of the degree of supersaturation
[brief, pages 6 and 7 and reply brief, pages 1 and 2]. We are
convinced that the term “degree of supersatura-tion” as used
in the claims is proper. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 14 through 21 and 23 through
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we have reversed the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 14 through 21 and 23 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007