Appeal No. 2001-1553 Page 10
Application No. 09/224,757
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision to reject
claims 25, 26 and 31 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Anticipation and Obviousness
The examiner has rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hribernik5 and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hribernik in view of Dabrowski6. The sole issue in dispute with regard to each of
these rejections is whether the liner of Hribernik’s weapon barrel is “a monolithic
nickel-titanium intermetallic compound” as called for in each of claims 10 and 21.
The primary source of the dispute between the examiner and appellant is in the
interpretation to be given to the term “monolithic” in claims 10 and 21. In accordance
with the dictionary definition of “monolithic” appended to the answer, the examiner
determines (answer, page 8) that “monolithic” as used in claims 10 and 21 is so broad
that it may be interpreted as “cast as a single piece,” “formed or composed of material
without joints or seams,” or “consisting of or constituting a single unit,” in addition to the
“undifferentiated throughout, as in cast or forged material” interpretation urged by
appellant (brief, page 6).
In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
5 U.S. Pat. No. 4,756,677, issued July 12, 1988 to Hribernik et al.
6 U.S. Pat. No. 5,155,291, issued October 13, 1992 to Dabrowski.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007