Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683
specification. See, e.g., Specification 16 (“Since the size of the furnace, the width
of the channel and legs, the design of the entrance to the legs, the exit temperature
of the molten material, the pull rate on the furnace and many other factors affect
where the optimum location of the low flow portion of the screen should be located
for optimum performance, some experimentation using the above disclosure as a
guide is necessary for optimization.”)
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish that the claims
are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
sld
JOHNS MANVILLE
10100 WEST UTE AVENUE
LITTLETON, CO 80127
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 3, 2007