Appeal No. 2000-0156
Application 08/531,023
property of a known material. The specification to us is written
in a manner that the artisan clearly would have reasonably
understood. As evidenced by appellant’s presentation of the U.S.
Patent 4,953,046 to Uchikawa and U.S. Patent 5,306,388 to
Nakajima, the physical properties of transparency or non-
transparency are known in the art as they apply to quartz glass.
Also as pointed out at page 10 of the brief, column 1, lines 21-
29 of Uchikawa and column 1, lines 27-35 of Nakajima are
consistent with appellant’s own characterization in the third
paragraph of the abstract of the disclosure at page 17 of the
specification as filed as well as the fourth paragraph of the
Summary of the Invention at page 4. It thus appears to us that
the art itself reasonably defines the scope of “transparent
quartz glass” as set forth in claim 6 on appeal. We thus reverse
the rejection of all the claims on appeal under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Lastly, we consider the rejection of all the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and reverse it as well. The
examiner’s position is bottomed upon the view that the recitation
of transparent quartz glass in the body of independent claim 6 on
appeal is a part of the admitted prior art of appellant based
upon a fair reading of the discussion of the disclosed invention
at page 9, line 12 through page 10, line 13. Although we agree
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007