Appeal No. 2002-2184
Application No. 08/406,297
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 42, filed Jan. 31, 2002) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST and SECOND PARAGRAPHS
Appellants argue that the examiner has not provided any justification in the
statement of the rejection. (See brief at page 11.) We agree with appellants, but find
that the examiner has detailed the basis of the rejection in a response to the
arguments. The examiner maintains a rejection of the claims based upon a lack of a
clear discussion in the original specification of the quoted language “a continuous body
of carbon.” (See answer at pages 3 and 8-9.) Appellants argue that pages 12 and 13
of the original specification provide implicit support for the language “a continuous body
of carbon.” (See brief at pages 9-10.) We agree with appellants. In addition to
describing the characteristics of the material as “engineering carbon graphite, which is
preferably about 80-90% dense, providing a slightly porous plate structure. . . The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007