Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
Regarding claim 26, we concur with the examiner that the
language "the total material" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Likewise, the claim 26 language of step (b) "the recirculated
particles" lacks antecedent basis. Also, we agree with the
examiner that the language of step (a), "circulating inert
granular material of the fluidized bed in such a way that a
portion of the total material is in pneumatic movement" is
indefinite since it is not clear what "portion" of the total
material is not in pneumatic movement. For example, does "the
total material" include a combination of inert material and
carbonaceous material or just inert material. While appellant
contends at page 2 of the Reply Brief that "[t]here is no
commonly accepted interpretation of the language 'a portion'
that specifically and unequivocally excludes 100%," we note
that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 896 (G & C Merriam
Co. 1976) defines "portion" as "an often limited part set off
or abstracted from a whole." Moreover, we are convinced that
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret "a
portion of the total material" as something less than 100% of
the total material.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007