Appeal No. 1997-1536 Application 08/342,817 "formal oxidation number" is indefinite and unclear "since the assignment of formal oxidation number can be subjective and/or arbitrary." Appellants' response to the examiner's stated position is found on page 5 of their brief wherein they urge: Applicants contend that the assignment of formal oxidation numbers is neither subjective nor arbitrary. The assignment follows a set of self-consistent rules well known to those skilled in the chemical arts. However, neither the examiner's stated position nor appellants' response to the examiner's position aid us in our determination of the issue raised, that is, what are the metes and bounds of claim 5. At page 5 of their specification, appellants disclose urea as exemplary of the "inexpensive, abundant, and relatively non-toxic nitrogen-containing compound" used in the claimed process. In Example 1, urea is utilized. In Example 2, urea is utilized. In Example 3, urea was utilized. No other nitrogen-containing compounds are disclosed or even suggested by appellants. Does the claim terminology include pyridine, phenylenediamine, hydrazine, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid or nitro benzene? We are simply left to conjecture what is intended by the terminology 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007