Appeal No. 1997-0540
Application No. 08/209,847
According to the appellants, the examiner's § 103
rejection of the process claims on appeal is improper because
Ardary contains no teaching of the here claimed catalyst
diffusion/soaking step defined by independent claim 11 (also
see dependent claim 12 as well as dependent claim 22).
However, patentee explicitly discloses an ammonia catalyst
flowing step (cf., the flowing step of appealed dependent
claim 12) followed by the step of placing the so-treated
material into an airtight plastic bag for a period of up to
five hours to thereby effect the desired gelation (e.g., see
lines 15 through 26 in column 3 and the paragraph bridging
columns 3 and 4). It is clear that these steps of the Ardary
process would inherently effect the catalyst diffusing/soaking
step defined by appealed independent claim 11. Indeed, the
appellants have conceded as much (e.g., see the second full
paragraph on page 7 of the Brief). Thus, while the here
claimed step in question may not be expressly taught by
Ardary, it quite plainly is satisfied by this reference under
the principles of inherency. Compare Kalman v. Kimberly
Clark, 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (1983) and In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007