Appeal No. 1997-3376
Application No. 08/176,187
For these reasons, we determine that the subject matter of
appealed claim 1 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since
the remaining claims on appeal all depend from claim 1, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have found the subject matter
defined by each of these dependent claims to have been obvious
over the applied references. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection is reversed.
New Ground of Rejection
We enter the following new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR 1.196(b):
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19, and 25 are rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement of this statutory provision.
Claim 1 defines a composition comprised of a composite
having, inter alia, a bulk or surface electrical conductivity
which is “homogeneous and isotropic.” For the reasons set forth
below, we find that amended claim 1 violates the written
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 reads as follows:
The specification shall contain a written
description of the invention and of the manner and
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007