Appeal No. 1996-2930
Application 08/301,784
claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over JP ‘465.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that appellants’ specification fails
to provide an enabling disclosure for carrying out the
hydrothermal treatment in water or an aqueous alkali solution
because at some combinations of temperature and pressure
within the temperature and pressure ranges recited in
appellants’ claim 1, water cannot exist as a liquid (answer,
pages 3-7). Appellants argue that the claims do not require
that the water or aqueous alkali solution is in the form of a
liquid (brief, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007