Ex parte KOFFRON - Page 3




                Appeal No. 1997-4237                                                                                                    
                Application No. 08/665,992                                                                                              




                circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.  In                             
                re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).                                                           
                        Here, the examiner asserts that the claims are indefinite regarding the optimal tilt                            
                angle and that therefore any angle could be optimal. (Answer, pages 3 and 4).                                           
                        Appellant points out that his specification adequately defines the optimal tilt angle,                          
                and that therefore the clams are definite in this regard. (Brief, page 5).                                              
                        Moreover, pages 15 and 16 of appellant=s specification describes how the optimal                                
                tilt angle is determined, using sensors which measure the degree of tilt, the amount of                                 
                metal poured into the ladle, the slag height, and an algorithm tailored to the historically                             
                determined optimal tilt angles or calculated from furnace geometry.                                                     
                        Therefore, in light of the specification, the challenged language is sufficient for                             
                defining the subject matter of the claims, and we reverse the examiner=s rejection.                                     
                                                                                                                                       

                II.     The Art Rejections                                                                                              
                     A. The 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 as being anticipated                                
                                                                                                                                       
                 by Ford                                                                                                                

                The examiner states that Ford teaches all of the aspects of rejected claims 1-4, 6-8, and                               
                10.  (Answer, page 4).  Appellant argues, inter alia, that his claimed invention adjusts to the                         
                changing wear conditions of the furnace lining, and that Ford does not disclose this aspect                             
                of his claimed invention.  (Brief, pages 7 and 8).                                                                      
                We agree with appellant=s statement mentioned above.  That is, we cannot find any                                       
                disclosure in Ford that satisfies the limitation of  Asaid optimal angle calculated as a                                
                function of the furnace geometry and historical data of furnace lining wear@ as recited in                              
                appellant=s method claim 1.  Nor does the examiner specifically point out any disclosure in                             
                Ford that sets forth this limitation or any structure capable of performing this function.                              
                Hence, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 as being                                  
                anticipated by Ford.                                                                                                    

                                3                                                                                                       






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007