Ex parte KETCHAM et al. - Page 11

                Appeal No. 1997-0448                                                                                                     
                Application No. 08/327,980                                                                                               

                1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is impermissible to engage in hindsight                                 

                reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the applicant’s structure as a template and selecting                     

                elements from references to fill the gaps.”).                                                                            

                        Independent claims 1 and 18, as well as independent claim 20 and all of their respective                         

                dependent claims, require recovering various molybdenum species from one or a specified combination                      

                of two aqueous media through an organic solvent extraction process.  Appellants acknowledge that                         

                “Chiola, et al. generally teach a solvent extraction process similar to the one taught in step F of Claim 1              

                and in dependant [sic] Claims 5-7 and also in step F of Claim 18 and dependent Claim 19 of the                           

                present invention” (brief, page 16, last para.).  The examiner is of the opinion that it would have been                 

                obvious “to extract the molybdenum of Barry with a tertiary amine because Chiola teaches such from a                     

                similar sulfuric acid solution containing molybdenum as in Barry” (answer, page 4, para. 6).  However,                   

                it is unclear which “molybdenum” fraction(s) of Barry the examiner is referring to.  More specifically,                  

                the examiner has failed to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the process                  

                of Barry by the disclosure of Chiola to obtain the sequence of reaction steps recites in claims 1 and 18                 

                (and 20).  The examiner has not established that the ammonium molybdate solution of Barry (see steps                     

                (D)(1) and (D)(2) above) has a “pH below about 0.5,” as required by Chiola (col. 3, lines 5-8) or, if                    

                not, why one would have adjusted the pH of the ammonium molybdate to below about 0.5.  The                               

                                                                 - 11 -                                                                  

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007