Appeal No. 2001-1372 Page 5
Application No. 08/018,841
soft yield strength” in claim 34 appear4 to refer back to the “relatively soft martensitic
state,” these terms are likewise indefinite.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the terminology “ultra-high strength
stress-induced martensitic state” in claim 30 and “ultra-high strength stress-induced
state” in claim 51. The terminology “ultra high strength martensitic state” is used in the
last full paragraph on page 7 of appellants’ specification but is not defined or quantified
therein. In our view, appellants’ specification (page 6, line 27; page 13, line 7) and
claims 15 and 37 indicate that ultimate yield strengths above 200 KSI or 250 KSI or
higher upon impact are desirable and contemplated within the scope of appellants’
invention. It is not clear, however, which, if either, of these ranges is considered an
“ultra-high strength” as used in claims 30 and 51. While we might speculate that a
strength above 200 KSI is a high yield strength and a strength of 250 KSI or higher is
an “ultra-high” strength as used in appellants’ claims, we also cannot rule out the
possibility that the disclosure and recitation of two different ranges is a matter of
inadvertence on appellants’ part and that any strength above 200 KSI is considered
“ultra-high.” Without clear guidance in the specification as to what constitutes an “ultra-
high” strength, we agree with the examiner that this language renders the scope of
4 The inconsistency in language (e.g., “relatively soft,” “low strength” and “soft yield strength”)
throughout the claims raises questions as to whether the later allusions to strengths refer back to the
“relatively soft martensitic state.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007