Appeal No. 2003-0607
Application 09/532,968
respective lengths of the layers, which lengths are determined by
the relative displacements between the torch and the preform, are
progressively shortened as a result of a progressive reduction in
the lengths of the displacements, so that the thickness of
deposited material that covers the preform and a portion of each
of the end-pieces decreases uniformly towards the ends, said one-
ended reduction in layer length leading to a limitation of the
thickness of material deposited on one of the end-pieces and on a
limited-length preform zone that is longitudinally adjacent to
said end-piece, at the level set by the layer deposited
immediately prior to said one-ended reduction, and
wherein the one ended reduction in the length is
greater than a reduction in length of an immediately prior layer
from a second to the immediate prior layer.
The examiner has indicated that the claims are
allowable over the prior art of record, “because the prior art
does not teach reducing layers such that prior layers have a
smaller reduction in length” as required by the claims. See
Final Rejection, page 4.
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described
in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventor[s], at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
We reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007