Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 is whether one
skilled in the relevant art would understand the bounds of the
claim when read in light of the specification. Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1
USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, a claim complies
with the second paragraph of section 112 if, when read in light
of the specification, it reasonably apprises those skilled in
the relevant art of the scope of the invention. Hybritech Inc.
v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ
81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, it is our judgment that the examiner has not
satisfied the initial burden of proof by establishing that the
claims, when read in light of the specification, would not
reasonably apprise those skilled in the relevant art of the
scope of the invention. Specifically, appealed claim 9 recites
in part: “wherein a thickness of said layer of source metal over
said receiving metal is between about 0.01 micron to about 15
microns, and preferably between about 3 microns to about 10
microns.”2 Regarding this limitation, the specification further
enlightens one skilled in the relevant art that the thickness of
2 Appealed claim 36 recites similar language.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007