Appeal No. 2006-1014
Application No. 10/255,081
Our interpretation of Appellants’ definition is that a
“high- rigidity brittle fracture portion” requires a material
that undergoes a “small” deformation when a force applied to the
material is larger than the repulsive energy of the material,
such that brittle fracture of the material occurs. Also,
Appellants’ “low-rigidity ductile fracture portion” phrase
requires a material that undergoes large ductile deformation
prior to fracture at an applied force. Moreover, Appellants’
specification indicates that the material used to make these
“high-rigidity brittle fracture portions” and the “low-rigidity
ductile fracture portions” may be made of the same material and
the rigidity of the respective portions, “. . . can be set by
the thickness and shape of the material.” (Specification,
page 9, lines 2-5). So, we conclude that Appellants’ claim
requires two portions, which may be made of the same material,
with one portion undergoing brittle fracture at small
deformation (“high rigidity brittle fracture portion”) and a
second portion undergoing large, ductile deformation prior to
fracture (“low-rigidity ductile fracture portion”).
From the foregoing exposition of the claim language, we
agree with the Examiner that Suzuki anticipates claim 1. As
cited by the Examiner, we find that Suzuki in Figures 4 and 6
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007