Appeal No. 2006-0816
Application 09/997,081
wherein, when said metal oxide is selected from Type I said carbon fiber construction is
the anode and when said metal oxide is selected from Type II said carbon fiber construction is
the cathode.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Illston et al. (Illston) 5,554,271 Sep. 10, 1996
Bett et al. (Bett) 5,840,414 Nov. 24, 1998
A.R. Boccaccini et al. (Boccaccini), “Use of electrophoretic deposition in the processing of fibre
reinforced ceramic and glass matrix composites; a review,” 32 Composites Part A: Applied
Sciences and Manufacturing 997-1006 (Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. Amsterdam, NL.
2001).
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boccaccini in view of Bett (answer, pages 4-6), and over Illston in view
of Bett (answer, pages 6-7).
Appellants argue claims 1 through 11 as a group and further present additional separate
argument with respect to claims 6 through 8, 10 and 11 as to both grounds of rejection (see brief
in entirety; reply brief, page 2). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1,
6 through 8, 10 and 11 as representative of the grounds of rejection and appellants’ groupings of
claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).
We affirm the first ground of rejection with respect to claims 1 through 5 and 9 through
11, and reverse this ground of rejection with respect to claims 6 through 8. We reverse the
second ground of rejection with respect to all claims.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
The threshold issue in this appeal entails the interpretation of the term “a carbon fiber
construction” in appealed claim 1. We interpret the language of the claims by giving the terms
thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written description in the
specification unless another meaning is intended by appellants as established in the written
description of the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or particular
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007