Appeal No. 95-2245
Application No. 08,011,563
sulfide in the presence of water, much less obtain sintered
titanium dioxide as a by-product from a chloride process.
The examiner alternatively asserts that a step for
obtaining sintered titanium oxide as a by-product of a
chloride process is not entitled to any patentable weight
because it is tantamount to claiming a catalyst in a product-
by-process format. See Answer, pages 5 and 6. This
assertion, however, is inapposite to the present situation
since the present claims recite a two-step process, rather
than a single step process involving the employment of a
catalyst which is defined by a product-by-process format. See
In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 69, 190 USPQ 15, 17 (CCPA 1976).
Although the examiner does not refer to the Hums
reference in rejecting claim 1 in a statement of rejection3
(Answer, page 4), the examiner states that it teaches at
column 5, lines 9-11, sintering titanium dioxides in order to
attach the resulting titanium dioxide to a support material
(Answer, page 8). However, not only we do not find such a
teaching at column 5, lines 9-11 of the Hum reference, but
3It is relied upon to reject only claims 3 and 8 which
are dependent on claim 1.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007