Appeal No. 1997-4194
Application No. 08/357,435
Similarly, as to claims 19 and 22, the examiner rejects the claims as indefinite
because the thickness ratios could not be identified after the annealing step. See
Answer, pages 3 and 4. We disagree.
As to the “optional alloy elements,” both the specification, page 2, and claim 2
specifically identifies the elements at issue as including V, Mo, Ti, Zr, Nb, Cr, Mn, Ru,
Rh, Ni, Mg, W, Si and the rare earth elements. Similarly, the specification and claims
identify the ratio of each of the elements entering into the AlCuFe alloy. See the
paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the specification and claim 1.
Finally, the examiner’s determination that claims 19 and 22 are indefinite
because the thickness ratios could not be identified after annealing is not understood.
Both claims 19 and 22 recite process steps in product claims. The thickness of the
final film is disclosed in both the specification and claims.
On this record, we conclude that the specification provides a reasonable
standard for understanding the metes and bounds of the terms, supra when the claim
is read in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc, 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-574 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007