Appeal No. 2002-1401
Application No. 09/187/226
13, 14 and 25 over Premkumar in view of Young; claims 3-6, 12,
19, 20 and 26 over Premkumar in view of Young and the appellants’
admitted prior art; and claims 15-18, 21, 22 and 24 over
Premkumar in view of Young, the appellants’ admitted prior art
and FR ‘878.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed as
to claim 1-7, 10, 15-18, 21, 22 and 24-26, and affirmed as to
claims 9, 11-14, 19 and 20. Under the provisions of 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) we enter a new ground of rejection of claims 21, 22
and 24.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Element (b) in the appellants’ claim 15 is “a covering
layer, consisting of a ceramic material comprising aluminum
and TiO2, and covering a surface of the composite material.” The
examiner argues that “since aluminum is not a ceramic material,
it renders the meaning of the claim language vague and
indefinite” (answer, page 5).
It is proper to use the specification to interpret what the
appellants mean by “ceramic material comprising aluminum”. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-30
(Fed. Cir. 1997). The aluminum-containing ceramic materials
Page 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007