Appeal No. 1998-0239
Application No. 08/279,907
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will sustain only the examiner's
rejection of claim 4 under § 112, second paragraph. Our
reasoning follows.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-
12, it is the examiner's position that the following language
of claim 1 is indefinite: "said particles having an irregular
non-spherical geometry of which at least 50% have a cross-
sectional average thickness of less than 1.5 microns." The
examiner states the following at page 8 of the Answer:
The test which is described on pages 15-
16 of the specification, and which is set
forth in claim 4, is not a test to determine
thickness, per se. Instead, the test is a
test to determine what percentage of high
fusing temperature metal particles have an
average thickness of less than 1.5 microns.
Specifically, in this case, the test is used
to determine if at least 50% of the high
fusing temperature metal particles have an
average thickness of less than 1.5 microns.
Hence, it can be seen that the examiner acknowledges that
appellants' specification discloses how to determine the
number of high-fusing temperature metal particles that have a
cross-sectional average thickness of less than 1.5 microns.
1(...continued)
withdrawn (see Supplemental Examiner's Answer).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007