Appeal No. 95-2741
Application 08/008,120
understand the examiner’s position, the indefiniteness rejection is premised on two grounds. First, the
inconsistency between applicant’s argument as to the scope of Claim 1 as excluding a preliminary
quench and dependent Claim 2's explicit requirement for a preliminary quench renders the scope of
Claim 2 unclear. Secondly, Claim 2 assertedly encompasses a quench liquid flow rate of zero, so it is
not clear what Claim 2 adds to Claim 1.
Applicant contends that claim 2 complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. “Claim 2 clearly recites that a quenching fluid is being added to the effluent at a rate such
that the duration of the presence of the quenching fluid in liquid phase in the effluent is minimized.”18
DECISION
We reverse all of the rejections.
ANALYSIS
A. The § 103 rejections
1. Grouping of the claims
In presenting the appeal, applicant has not asserted the patentability of the dependent claims
separate from claim 1. Thus, we decide the § 103 rejections on the basis of claim 1 alone and need not19
address the Lee reference.
2. Claim interpretation
Because it appears the examiner and the applicant disagree as to the scope of claim 1, we must
construe that claim. Claim interpretation is the logical starting point of the patentability analysis. Titanium
18 Appeal Brief, page 6, second paragraph.
19 Appeal Brief, page 4.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007