Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
According to the examiner, claims 12 and 21 do not find
descriptive support in the original specification since they
encompass a process wherein the carbonaceous material and
inert particles are separately returned to the reactor. We
will not sustain this rejection because all that is required
by § 112, first paragraph, is that the claimed subject matter
be described in the original specification, and appellant's
specification adequately describes the claimed return of the
separated unreacted carbonaceous material and the separated
inert particles. The claims do not require that the
carbonaceous and inert materials are separately returned.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 24 and
26 under § 112, second paragraph. We agree with the examiner
that claim 24 is indefinite with respect to whether the
carbonaceous material or inert material has the recited flow
rate of 7.8 6g/second. While appellant states at page 12 of
the principal brief that claim 24 has a typographical error
"in referencing step (c) rather than step (f)," the examiner
correctly points out that claim 21, upon which claim 24
depends, does not include a step (f).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007