Ex Parte EVANS - Page 11



          Appeal No. 2005-1220                                                        
          Application No. 09/270,606                                Page 11           

               Consequently, we are in full agreement with the examiner’s             
          obviousness determination of the subject matter of representative           
          claim 1 over the combined teachings of the applied prior art.               
               In light of the above discussion, appellant’s arguments                
          concerning a lack of suggestion of the claimed subject matter in            
          the applied references is not persuasive.  Concerning the                   
          examiner’s combination of Grover and Burke with Kodera, we note             
          that the applied prior art need not disclose the same function              
          for the modified slurry composition that is employed as that                
          disclosed by appellant for the prior art to render the use of a             
          slurry composition, as claimed, obvious within the meaning of               
          § 103(a).  See, e.g., In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d            

          polishing rates without appellant having particularly defined or            
          having specified a particular way of assessing the meets and                
          boundaries of those terms of degree in the specification, as                
          filed.  Nevertheless, for reasons stated above, we determine that           
          the merits of the examiner’s obviousness rejection can be                   
          assessed by giving those claim terms a reasonable conditional               
          claim interpretation based on their broadest reasonable meaning             
          in light of appellant’s drawing figure representations, as                  
          discussed above.  However, in the event of further prosecution of           
          this subject matter before the examiner, the examiner should                
          determine whether or not the claims are compliant with the second           
          paragraph of § 112 in light of those terms of degree as employed            
          in the claims.  After all, a principal purpose of the second                
          paragraph of § 112 is to provide those who would endeavor, in               
          future enterprises, to approach the area circumscribed by the               
          claims of a patent, with adequate notice demanded by due process            
          of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine              
          the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the                      
          possibility of infringement and dominance.  See In re Hammack,              
          427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).                         




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007