Appeal No. 1996-2566
Application No. 08/107,656
appellants, the feeding step f of appealed claim 12 would be
recognized as one which generates heat.
We cannot subscribe to appellants arguments with respect
to this issue. First, appellants have proffered no objective
evidence in support of their contention that heat is
inherently liberated during their feeding step. Secondly and
importantly, even if heat is given off as the solid basic
aluminum chloride is fed into the aqueous sulfuric acid
solution as a result of a neutralization reaction, there is no
description in appellants’ originally filed specification that
their feeding step should be carried out for 1 to 3 hours at a
temperature maintained in the range of 40EC to 70EC to effect
the desired degree of polymerization to form the claimed
polyaluminum chloride solution. This is a concept not
described by appellants’ application. While the “written
description requirement” of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 may be satisfied if there is support in the original
disclosure for the concept of what is later claimed, In re
Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ 331, 336 (CCPA 1973),
amendatory claim language which introduces new concepts
violates the “written description requirement” of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007