Appeal No. 2002-0669 6
Application No. 09/527,270
volume,” the specification as filed directed to original claim 8 did not even require the
presence of an activator. In addition, original claim 8 describes both the temperature and
proportion of Al donor utilizing the term, “about.” Furthermore, we find that original
claim 9 states that, “the vapor phase deposition process employs a halide as an activator.”
Original claim15 directed to aluminum fluoride as an activator requires no specific
concentration for the activator. We also find that original claim 15 describes both the
temperature and the duration utilizing the term, “about.” In contrast, only the Examples
in Table I and Table II of the specification, pages 9 and 11 respectively, describe a method
conducted at 1010oC, for 6 hours, utilizing Co2Al5 as an aluminum donor and AlF3 as an
activator at a concentration of 1.8 g/l of coating container volume. When viewing the
specification as a whole, however, we conclude that the original application establishes that
appellants did not intend the claimed subject matter to be limited to the specific values of
Tables I and II. We further conclude that the intent of appellants is that the values
specifically exemplified in Tables I and II would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in
the art that included therein were values less than or greater than those enumerated.
Accordingly, the appellants had possession of the claimed subject matter before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007