Appeal No. 96-0153
Application No. 08/014,407
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971). When so interpreted, it is apparent that the claim
term "predetermined" does not "mean merely the preselecting of
a value" such as "0" as the examiner urges. Indeed, the
examiner's contention that the selection of "a 'predetermined'
value equal to '0' . . . would meet the limitations of the
claims . . . [whereby] there would be no ammonia loading" is
entirely inconsistent with the appellants' application
disclosure.
Under these circumstances, we cannot sustain the
examiner's section 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims
1 through 6.
The section 112, first paragraph, rejection
The examiner's nonenablement position, as expressed on
page 3 of the answer, is set forth below:
In the present disclosure, on page 3, lines 17-19,
it is stated that the threshold value is determined
in accordance with the catalyst properties and
catalyst volume. What properties of the catalyst
are used to make this determination and how exactly
are they correlated to the values? Due to the
unpredictable nature of catalytical processes, it is
submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not know which specific properties could be
used to determine the present operating parameters
without undue experimentation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007