Appeal No. 1997-0448
Application No. 08/327,980
ISSUES2
Claims 1-7 and 10-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barry
in view of Vertes and Chiola. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barry in view of Vertes and Chiola as applied to claims 1-7 and 10-19 and further in
view of Sohn. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Barry in view of Vertes and Chiola and Sohn as applied to claims 1-7 and
10-21 and further in view of GB ‘472. We reverse.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15, mailed June 25, 1996) for the examiner’s
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed February 20,
1996) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed a process of producing molybdenum trioxide from
molybdenite comprising forming an aqueous slurry of molybdenite, pressure oxidizing the slurry at a
partial pressure of free oxygen of between about 75 and about 200 psi and at a temperature of at least
2According to the advisory action mailed August 22, 1995 (Paper No. 10), the final rejection of claims 1-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite has been overcome by the amendment filed August 9, 1995
(Paper No. 9).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007