Appeal No. 94-4217
Application 07/853,663
the inlet portion and below the same threshold temperature in
the outlet portion.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Marion L. Brown, Jr., & Albert W. Green, “Purifying Hydrogen
by ... Selective Oxidation of Carbon Monoxide,” 52 Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, no. 10, 841-44 (October 1960)
(Brown).
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6 on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, and
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Brown. We
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced
by the examiner and appellants, we refer to the examiner’s
answer and to appellants’ brief for a complete exposition
thereof.
Opinion
In analyzing appealed claim 1 with respect to the
compliance thereof with the requirement of ' 112, second
paragraph, we are guided by the directive of our reviewing
court that “[t]he operative standard for determining whether
this requirement is met is ‘whether those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in
light of the specification’.” The Beachcombers, International
v. WildeWood Creative Products, 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d
1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994), quoting Orthokinetics Inc v.
Safety Travel Chairs Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d
1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Indeed, we are of the view that
one skilled in this art would read the claim to require a
catalyst which has the characteristics of oxidizing carbon
monoxide in an exothermic reaction at temperatures within a
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007