Appeal No. 1997-1536
Application 08/342,817
the temperature to above 700EC, to provide said
carbonaceous char.
Claim 10. The
carbonaceous char prepared by the process of claim 1.
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable from the disclosure of Hayden
considered with Bearden, Jr., et al. Claims 10 and 11 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Marten. Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1 through 14 of Hayden considered with
Bearden, Jr., et al. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1 through 4 of Matviya et al.
OPINION
We begin our opinion by analyzing the scope and content
of appellants' claims on appeal. The claims are directed to a
process which "comprises" various steps. As "comprising"
claims, the appealed claims do not exclude any other steps or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007