Appeal No. 1998-3276
Application No. 08/667,211
We reverse the aforementioned rejections for reasons which
follow.
The examiner admits that the prior art references do not
describe the content of iron contamination in the molten tin
alloy dip. Nevertheless, the examiner alleges that “a process
performed [for forming a triniobium tin superconductor] using a
[molten tin alloy] dip which does not contain iron would fall
within the limitations of the appealed claims.” (Id. at page
4.) The examiner further states:
[T]he examiner sees no reason to assume that an
element [Fe] would be present in the prior art when
that element is not discussed in the prior art and the
prior art gives no suggestion or reason to believe
such an element would be present. At the very least,
the examiner’s position is that any residual or
impurity amounts of iron which could be present in the
prior art tin dip...would be a very small amount, i.e.
would be an amount within the range of 0-125 ppm as
permitted by the language of the appealed claims.
[Id. at pp. 6-7.]
The examiner’s position is without merit. While unpatented
claims must be interpreted by giving words their broadest
reasonable meanings in their ordinary usage, taking into account
the written description found in the specification, the
interpretation of the claim language must be “reasonable in
light of the totality of the written description.” In re Baker
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007