Appeal No. 2006-0902 2
Application No. 10/125,942
45, 47, 54-56, 58, 64-68, 72, 74-76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 89,
91, 92, and 95-99 are allowed.
The two claims on appeal are dependent claims, each
depending on a previously allowed claim. The appealed
claims read as follows:
Claim 49. The titanium powder of claim 44, wherein said Ti
powder has a packing fraction in the range of from about 4%
to about 11%.
Claim 84. The titanium powder of claim 81, wherein said Ti
powder has a packing fraction in the range of from about 4%
to about 11%.
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 49 and 84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement of the statute.
We have fully evaluated the positions taken by the
examiner and the appellants on appeal. Having done so, we
find the examiner’s position more persuasive. Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection at issue.
More particularly, we note that the sole issue before
us is essentially identical to the issue we decided in
related application 10/125,988, Appeal No. 2005-1905,
concerning appellants’ failure to satisfy the written
description requirement for the recitation in their claims
of a “packing fraction” within a range of “from about 4% to
about 11%”. There, as here, we found no literal support
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007