Appeal No. 1998-0753
Application No. 08/684,204
specification and state of the prior art. In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Also, although the proper verb form is "educed" rather than
"educted," it is well settled that an applicant may be his own
lexicographer. However, we do recommend that appellant make
the appropriate amendment to claims 5 and 10, as well as to the
EXAMPLE at page 5 of the specification.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under § 103. While we agree with the examiner that the
collective teachings of McCort and Coleman would have suggested
using a water jet to cut a fiberglass panel, we cannot agree
with the examiner that Kik would have suggested utilizing a
liquid jet which contains a sealant coating. Although the
cleaning/blasting treatment of Kik may be "similar" to cutting,
as stated by the examiner, we do not find that the techniques
of cleaning/blasting and cutting are sufficiently similar to
have suggested appellant's inclusion of a sealant coating in a
liquid jet which performs a cutting operation.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007