Appeal No. 95-2742
Application 08/006,411
examiner only to the extent of the rejection of appealed claims 9
through 11 in the last stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
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
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appealed claims 1
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, since it is
clear to us that claims 1, 3 and 6 comply with the requirements
of this section of the statute. Indeed, in appealed claim 1, the
language “thereby treating said hydrochloric acid and the
activated carbon having adsorbed silicon-containing materials
thereon” merely summarizes that in process step “(I)” (1) the
hydrochloric acid has been treated, and (2) the silicon-
containing materials have been adsorbed onto the activated
carbon. With respect to appealed claims 3 and 6, the language
“any silicon-containing materials contained in said hydrochloric
acid to adsorb on the activated carbon thereby ... the activated
carbon having adsorbed silicon-containing materials” of process
step “(I)” of appealed claim 1 (emphasis added) expressly
indicates how the activated carbon contains the silicon-
containing material, thus providing antecedent basis for the
language “the activated carbon containing silicon-containing
materials” in appealed claims 3 and 6.
We further reverse the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. '
103 of appealed claims 1 and 2 and of appealed claims 3 through
8. As a matter of claim construction, it is apparent to us that
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007