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