Appeal No. 94-3479
Application 07/917,261
(c) exposing the effluent from the reducing catalyst to an
oxidation catalyst.
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Davis 4,087,384 May 2, 1978
Torii et al. (Torii) 4,111,848 Sept. 5, 1978
Claims 15 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kintaichi in view of Davis or Torii.
We cannot sustain this rejection.
The examiner’s rejection is premised on an improper
interpretation of the claim language, "highly acidic gamma
alumina;" the examiner has essentially interpretted the language
as meaning alumina. However, it is axiomatic that, in
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We agree with appellants that the term, "highly acidic
gamma alumina," must be interpreted as defined in their
specification on page 5, line 25 to page 6, line 15, to mean a
gamma alumina having a pH of less than 3.0. In their
pzc
specification, appellants state that commercially available
alumina comes in three forms: mildly acidic (5-8 pH ), basic,
pzc
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007