Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application No. 09/781,631
Claims 34, 36, 39, 40, 44 and 47-70 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Tang.
Claims 31, 32, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Usui.
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Usui.
Claims 52, 54-56, 62 and 64-66 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Usui.
Claims 42, 44 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hanyu.
Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Hanyu.
Claims 45 and 47-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Hanyu.
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief, the answer,
and the evidence of record. This review has led us to make the
following determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
rejection of claims 41, 43, and 48
We select claim 41 for consideration.
The examiner’s position is set forth on page 6 of the
answer. The examiner asserts that the claims are unclear with
regard to the toughness measurement because the manner in which
the toughness measurement was conducted is not defined in the
specification, and the type of toughness is not defined in the
specification. The examiner states that toughness can be
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007