Appeal No. 1996-2566
Application No. 08/107,656
decomposition of a different product at a different
temperature for a different purpose. Thus it is not apparent
how the “proviso” is violated by the step e thermal
decomposition “heat-treatment.”
With respect to appealed dependent claim 14 which defines
the AlCl @ 6H O as having a residual moisture content of 3 to3 2
10 weight percent, we agree with appellants that one of
ordinary skill in this art would understand that the residual
moisture content is the content of water or moisture
physically adsorbed or accompanying the crystal product, AlCl3
@ 6H O, in addition to the water of hydration of the
2
hexahydrate. See the brief at page 13. We therefore see no
indefiniteness in this claim.
The examiner also indicates that appealed dependent
claims 19 and 21 run afoul of the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112 because these claims recite the plural form of the word
“claim” (i.e., “according to claims 12") which is said to be
“ungrammitical.” See the answer at page 3. Appellants
concede that this rejection is appropriate since the
“misspelling” involves a typographical error. Therefore, we
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007