Appeal No. 96-2884
Application No. 08/181,997
unclear. We are not persuaded by this reasoning. Claim 1, from which claim 18
depends, requires the use of gas containing hydrogen in the first step. Claim 18
requires that the first step ”further comprises” another gas, which may be carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, or methane. When the phrase “no more than...one ” is
interpretated as zero, then claim 18 states no more than claim 1. However that does
not make the claim unclear but rather indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art that
claim 18 embraces two embodiments, the first where no gas is added and second
where some gas is added. Accordingly, we find the claim to be sufficiently definite
with respect to the controverted phrases.
As to claims 5 and 9, the examiner contends that the term “primary” in
claims 5 and 9 is unclear. We agree with the appellants that one of ordinary skill in the
art would know that the term “primary”, given it’s ordinary dictionary meaning, would
indicate that a fundamental or basic byproduct of the process is water in claim 9 and
similarly that the fundamental or basic source of carbon in the first component is carbon
monoxide or carbon dioxide in the embodiment of claim 5. Lantech Inc. v. Keip
Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547, 31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994), quoting
Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir.
1984). (Terms in claims “will be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it
appears that the inventor used them differently.”).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007