Appeal No. 1997-0359
Application No. 08/173,485
equated with indefiniteness of the claims. An invention is
entitled to as broad a coverage as is reasonable under the
statutes.
As for the indefiniteness of the claims, the Examiner
contends [answer, page 3] that “[w]hile claim 23 has been
improved in some respects, problems persist, such as in claim
14, lines 2-3 [sic], where the metal M lacks antecedent basis
in independent claim 23, since claim 23 recites a step of
forming ‘(c) an aqueous colloidal solution of M values,’ n+
while dependent claim 14 recites that at least 95% of the M in
the
colloidal dispersion is in colloidal form.” (Emphasis in
original.) Again, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument
[brief, page 6] that “the M values are derived from a salt ofn+
an acidic metal cation M , i.e., the aqueous colloidaln+
dispersion contains metal M. Furthermore, the specification
at page 8, and page 14 ... provides additional description of
metal M in the colloidal form.”
The Examiner also contends [answer, page 3] that “[i]n
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007