Appeal No. 2000-0012
Application No. 09/024,413
appellant's argument. The same scenario also applies to the
examiner's rejection of claim 8, which recites adding sodium
sulphate in order to buffer the oxidizing action of the nitrate.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner's
rejection of claims 6, 7 and 8. We will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 9 because, as explained above, Carnahan
expressly teaches adding sodium nitrate to the dilute aqueous
solution of sulphuric acid in order to speed the dissolution of
copper from the ore.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The examiner's rejection of claims 6-8 is reversed. In addition,
since it is not clear on this record that the examiner has
examined the limitations of claims 6-8, this application is
remanded to the examiner to consider whether claims 6-8 should be
rejected under any of the patent statutes.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
This application, by virtue of its "special" status,
requires immediate action by the examiner. See the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure, § 708.01(D) (8th ed., Aug. 2001). It
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007