of; "A method *** comprising identifying said first habitat, and
applying lethally effective amount of pesticide to an area
consisting of said first habitat, whereby ***.").
A review of the invention described in applicant's
specification would suggest that applicant intends to recover
diaryl carbonate solely from a mixture of (a) diaryl carbonate
and (b) contaminant by-products of a diaryl carbonate
preparation. As observed in the Appeal Brief (page 6) and the
Reply Brief (page 2), while "contaminants" might include small
amounts of residual phenol, "contaminants" would not include
adding sufficient phenol to make an adduct having a 1:1 molar
ratio of diaryl carbonate to phenol. Adding large amounts of
phenol would be inconsistent with step [1] of the process as set
out in our suggested claim. While claim 1 as presented on appeal
does not preclude the addition of other materials, claim 1 as
suggested would not permit other material to be added, including
additional phenol as set out in step [1a] supra (Finding 7) in
our opinion because to do so would contravene the solution to be
treated as defined in step [1] of our suggested claim.
D. Order
Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given,
it is
ORDERED that the examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shafer is
affirmed.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007