Appeal No. 95-2535
Application 07/987,127
producing urea is being claimed, not a method of re-
constructing an existing production plant.
Claims 10-14 are all dependent upon claim 9 and are
similarly confusing and indefinite. Claims 10, 11, 12 and 14
each modify claim 9 by adding a "wherein" clause which reads
"wherein urea synthesis . . . is carried out . . . ." Claim
13 is dependent on claim 12. These dependent claims do not
further limit a method of "revamping a pre-existing urea
production plant," rather they limit a method of producing
urea.
This panel is unable to ascertain whether the claims are
drawn to a method of making urea, or to a method of modifying
a production plant. Given this ambiguity, this panel cannot
determine whether method step b) further limits the subject
matter claimed if the method is merely one of revamping a pre-
existing plant by providing a second reactor.
Consequently, we vacate the examiner's rejection of
claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In doing so, we emphasize
that we have not decided and cannot decide the merits of the
issues raised by the examiner. If prosecution is continued on
this subject matter, and claims are presented which satisfy
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007