Appeal No. 98-0140
S.N. 08/401761
(C) The claim interpretation that would be given by
one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art at the time the invention was made.
MPEP, § 2173.02 (Rev. 1 , Feb. 2000).
In the instance case, the specification is silent
about the type of radiation source (? value) used in making
X-ray diffraction measurements of appellants’ titanyl
phthalocyanine crystal. However, the prior art relied upon
by appellants (with the exception of publications numbered
9 and 10 on page 3 of this opinion) provide specific
teachings of using CuKa radiation in making X-ray
diffraction measurements of titanyl phthalocyanine
crystals. In light of these teachings, we believe that it
would have been reasonably clear to one skilled in the art
that appellants’ claims mean that the maximum X-ray
diffraction peak is obtained using CuKa as the source of
radiation. We recognize that the examiner finds these
teaching inadequate because they do not show that CuKa
radiation is required in making X-ray diffraction
measurements of titanyl phthalocyanine crystals. However,
all that is necessary is that their teachings provide
sufficient knowledge such that it would have been
reasonably clear to one skilled in the art that appellants’
claims mean that the maximum X-ray diffraction peak is
obtained using CuKa as the source of radiation. We believe
that one skilled in the art would interpret appellants’
claims 3 and 5 to include the recognition that CuKa
radiation would have been used to obtain the X-ray
diffraction peak recited in these claims in light of the
teachings of the references discussed above. The examiner
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007