Ex Parte GORDON - Page 5



           Appeal No. 2001-2557                                                                
           Application No. 08/888,996                                                          

           present application, the broad invention of a ductile metallic                      
           surrounded by an ionically conductive ceramic matrix.  Hence, it                    
           is our view that the alloys recited in claim 10 on appeal are                       
           sub-genuses encompassed by the broader genus originally described                   
           in appellant’s specification.  Also, as argued by appellant, the                    
           original specification describes specific alloys that qualify as                    
           the claimed “stainless steel, iron based alloys, cobalt based                       
           alloys, or nickel based alloys or super alloys.”  Accordingly,                      
           we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under                      
           § 112, first paragraph.                                                             
                The examiner also does not find original descriptive support                   
           in the specification for “the temperature limits of claims 1 and                    
           7" (page 4 of answer, second paragraph).  Claim 1 recites “less                     
           than 1700ēC”, but claim 7 has no recitation of a temperature.                       
           Claim 9 recites “less than 1550ēC.”  Accordingly, we will presume                   
           that the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is directed to claim 9.                    
           Also, we note that appellant has considered the examiner’s                          
           rejection to be directed to claims 1 and 9 (see page 6 of brief,                    











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007