Appeal 2007-0086
Application 10/845,785
Claims 1-40 are rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 40 is rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which Appellant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-18, 26-30, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over, Brown.
The remaining appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Brown in view of Marsden or Brown in view of either
Iyer or Lang.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed in the Answer and below, we will sustain
the § 112, 2d ¶, rejection as well as each of the § 102 and § 103 rejections.
However, we will not sustain the § 112, 1st ¶, rejection as fully explained
hereinafter.
The § 112, 2d ¶, Rejection
Claim 40 requires the foundry shape to be “substantially cured” within
15 minutes. According to the Examiner, the claim is indefinite because the
Specification contains no definition or guidance as to the meaning or scope
of the term “substantially” (Answer 4, 8). We agree.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013