Appeal No. 1999-1810
Application 08/288,433
claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, is
that the preamble of claim 1 states that the claimed process
is a process for purifying an aqueous alkali metal chloride
solution, and claims 18 and 20 recite processes for
electrolyzing the solution produced by the process of claim 1
rather than further limiting the process for purifying the
aqueous alkali metal chloride solution (answer, page 4). The
fourth paragraph of § 112, however, does not require that a
dependent claim must fall within the scope of the recited
subject matter in the claim from which it depends but, rather,
requires that the dependent claim must specify a further
limitation of the subject matter of the claim from which it
depends. Because the electrolysis step in claims 18 and 20 is
a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1, claims
18 and 20 are in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph. Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims
18 and 20 under § 112, fourth paragraph.
Rejections of claim 16 over Bissot
The appellant discloses that the aqueous alkali metal
chloride solutions which can be used in the process of their
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007