Appeal No. 2001-1553 Page 11
Application No. 09/224,757
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
We note that the term “monolithic” in appellant’s claims 10 and 21 modifies the
claim term “compound,” not the tube or sleeve made from the compound. Thus, in this
instance, the definitions “cast as a single piece,” “formed or composed of material
without joints or seams” and “consisting of or constituting a single unit” would not seem
to be appropriate or reasonable modifiers for a compound. Rather, a definition such as
“undifferentiated throughout”7 appears more appropriate. Thus, we interpret the term
“monolithic” in appellant’s claims 10 and 21 as “undifferentiated throughout.”
Hribernik’s weapon barrel liner is deliberately powder-metallurgically formed
(sintered) from different metallic materials to permit the production of a particularly light-
weight weapon barrel resistant to the different stresses or loads (high pressure on the
one hand and abrasive stresses on the other hand) acting on the liner during the use
thereof (column 1, lines 22-38; column 2, lines 1-45). Appellant argues that the
sintered material of Hribernik’s liner remains essentially in granular form, fused at its
edges, and thus is not “monolithic” or “undifferentiated throughout” as used in claims 10
and 21 (brief, page 6). The examiner has not challenged this statement by appellant,
7 One of the dictionary definitions of “monolithic” appended to the answer is “constituting a
massive undifferentiated and often rigid whole.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007