Appeal 2007-0738
Application 11/109,274
Examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the DiChiara
patent.
We remain of the opinion that the claims on appeal only require that
there be a uniform distribution of boron within some portion of the porous
body. Significantly, the language of the appealed claims does not require a
uniform distribution of boron throughout the entirety of the ceramic body.
Appellants pose the question “how does the board justify re-writing
the words to a non-specific ‘a uniform distribution within the body’ when
the words themselves unambiguously say, ‘the boron source is uniformly
distributed within the ceramic body’” (Request 2, first para.). The answer is
found in our Decision, i.e., the claim language “boron is uniformly
distributed within the porous ceramic body” can be reasonably interpreted as
a uniform distribution of boron throughout a certain thickness of the ceramic
body but not throughout the entire thickness of the body. It is not so much
that there is a clear distinction between the words “throughout” and “within”
but, rather, that the appealed claims encompass a uniform distribution of
boron throughout or within only a particular portion or thickness of the
ceramic body.
Appellants maintain that “by logic, if it is ‘throughout’ the body, it is
‘within’ the body; otherwise, where is it?” (Request 2, second para.)
However, the converse of this statement demonstrates that the words
“throughout” and “within” may be reasonably interpreted differently, such
as an element may be within a body, at some location, but not throughout the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013