Appeal No. 96-2884
Application No. 08/181,997
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a two step process for the
production of iron carbide from iron oxide. The independent claims, claims 1, 23 and
41, set forth three embodiments of the claimed invention each of which recites the use
of hydrogen in the first step to reduce the iron feed to a metallic iron product and
various combinations of gases in the second step to convert the metallic iron product to
iron carbide. In addition, claim 41 recites the inclusion of a carbon containing gas to
the first step. The independent claims are illustrative of the claims on appeal and are
reproduced in the appendix to this decision.
Appellant has indicated that all the claims do not stand or fall together
with respect to rejections I, III-V (see, infra). Accordingly, the grouping of claims as set
forth in the brief will be addressed with the respective rejections.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Okamura et al. (Okamura) 4,668,414 May 26, 1987
Stephens et al. (Stephens) 5,073 194 Dec. 17, 1991
The rejections before us are:
2
I. Claims 5, [sic: 9, ] 18, 19, 34, 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
II. Claims 24, 30, 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, description requirement.
In both the final rejection and examiner’s answer the primary examiner2
identified claim 9 as unclear; however, he did not recite claim 9 in the statement of the
rejection. Appellant has argued the merits of this rejection with respect to claim 9.
Accordingly, we treat claim 9 as part of this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007