Appeal No. 1997-0534
Application 08/171,904
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants’ arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the brief.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not proper. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We now consider the various rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner asserts
[Answer, page 3] that these claims are indefinite because the
phrase “of micron size range” in the independent claims 1 and
7 is undefined. Appellants contend [Brief, page 6] that the
specification at “page 4, fifth line from bottom” recites the
micron size as about 5 microns and that such terminology is
quite common in the “mechanically ground, powdered high
temperature superconductor materials.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007