Appeal No. 1997-1551
Application No. 08/235,597
e examiner refers to claims 1-8 at p. 5 of his September 27, 1996 Answer, but as noted above, claims 7 and 8 have been cancelled.
aim 1 provides for a particle range larger than approximately 1.0-2.0 microns, but as noted below, that limitation is indefinite. For the
pose of considering the rejections under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, claim 1 is interpreted in a manner which renders it definite. See Ex parte
scu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (BPAI 1984).
e also, the specification at p. 9, lines 1 and 2, for hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2); and p. 7, line 21, for sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3).
e February 21, 1996 Final Office Action included a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Kohl in view of Steag and
ellants= admission, but at that time claim 1 did not include any limitation as to particle sizes greater than 1.0 micron. Claims 7 and 8, which did include
cle sizes, were not rejected over the same two references and admission. The April 25, 1996 Amendment after Final Rejection, approved for entry by
examiner, inserts particle size limitations into claim 1 and cancels claims 7 and 8. In light of the record, therefore, this rejection of claim 1 should have
n withdrawn as no longer applicable.
16
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 3, 2007