The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte PHILIP J. MAZIASZ,
TIM MCGREEVY, MICHAEL JAMES POLLARD,
CHAD W. SIEBENALER and ROBERT W. SWINDEMAN
______________
Appeal No. 2006-2061
Application 10/195,703
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, TIMM and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 24 and
26 through 29, all of the claims in the application under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement.
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
Appealed claims independent claims 1 and 18 encompass alloys comprising at least the
specified elements in the specified amounts including “less than 0.01 weight percent sulfur.”
The reasonable construction of the sulfur limitation in context and in light of the written
description in the specification is that the range “less than 0.01” has a lower limit of “0.0.” This
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007