Appeal No. 1999-1832
Application No. 08/474,233
THE REFERENCES
Mao et al. (Mao) 4,861,847 Aug. 29, 1989
Ishimaru et al. (Ishimaru) 4,990,479 Feb. 05, 1991
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 14 and 16-30 stand rejected as follows: under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement,
and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view
of Ishimaru.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellants argue that the claims stand or fall in two
groups: 1) claims 14, 16, 19 and 21-30, and 2) claims 17, 18 and
20 (brief, page 4). We therefore limit our discussion to one
claim in each group, i.e., claims 14 and 20. See In re Ochiai,
71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir.
1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that the appellants’ specification lacks
adequate written descriptive support for the lower limit of the
1 to 400 Si/Ti range in claim 14 (answer, page 3). The
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007