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
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007