Appeal No. 2002-1205
Application No. 09/422,380
However, the compound formula set forth in claim 4 (from which
claim 5 depends) does not contain a qualifying equation (a preferred
embodiment). Because x and y can have values more broad than in
claim 2, and more broad than the embodiments disclosed in appellants’
specification, we cannot ascertain what values of x and y would not
result in appellants’ invention. Appellants’ specification is silent
about when x and y have values other than the more limited values
represented in figure 4 and disclosed on pages 5-9. For this reason,
we affirm the rejection of claims 4-5.
The examiner also rejects claim 3, stating that it is indefinite
because of the phrase “about 0.” We disagree for the following
reasons.
Claim 3 recites “with x in the range of about 0 to 0.1.” This
recitation encompasses both situations discussed by the examiner on
page 4 of the answer. It does not have to address one situation or
the other. Therefore, we determine that claim 3 is not indefinite.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection, with respect to claims 2, 3, and 7, but
we affirm the rejection with respect to claims 4 and 5.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Critical to resolving this issue is a determination of whether
either Yamanaka or Akashi discloses a ferroelectric material because
appellants’ claims are directed to a ferroelectric material, and a
method of fabrication of a ferroelectric material.
In the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the examiner relies upon the
theory of inherency to meet the aspect of appellants’ claims
regarding a ferroelectric material or a method of making the same.
Answer, pages 4 and 5-6.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007