Appeal 2007-2850
Application 10/155,015
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(citing, inter
alia, In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 181, 126 USPQ 242, 251 (CCPA 1960)
(“The description in patents are not addressed to the public generally, to
lawyers or to judges, but, as section 112 says, to those skilled in the art to
which the invention pertains or with which it is most nearly connected.”)).
In this case, Appellants have explained that one of ordinary skill
would accord a narrower definition to the term “mixed crystal”, which
would exclude a mixture including two different abrasives of crystalline
form. We determine that Appellants’ proposed definition of the term
“mixed-crystal” is consistent with the meaning of the term as it would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, we note that the
IUPAC definition1 is consistent with Appellants’ proposed definition. We
also note that the claim recitation of “a mixed-crystal abrasive of silica and
alumina” distinguishes over two separate abrasive materials.
Because the Examiner has not shown that the applied prior art
discloses or suggests “a mixed-crystal abrasive of silica and alumina” as
claimed, we reverse the rejections of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Baines as evidenced by Fromson and Kutsch and
1 A “mixed-crystal” is defined as: “A crystal containing a second
constituent which fits into and is distributed in the lattice of the host crystal.”
http://goldbook.iupac.org/M03940.html. Gold, V.; Loening, K.L.;
McNaught, A.D., and Shemi, P. Blackwell Science, Compendium of
Chemical Terminology, 1987 [ISBN 0-63201-7651(8)].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013