Appeal No. 1997-1667
Application No. 08/226,819
regarding the meaning of this term), the expression
“exhibiting
. . . species” in claims 6 and 25 (in addition to the
appellant’s comments, see pages 6 and 7 of the subject
specification regarding the meaning of this expression), or
the term “oxometal” in claims 27, 33, 36 and 38. It follows
that we cannot sustain the examiner’s section 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 6 through 12, 25, 27, 29
through 33 and 36 through 38.
However, we will sustain the examiner’s section 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claim 28 since the appellant
has not contested and in fact appears to agree with the
examiner’s criticism of this claim (see the paragraph bridging
pages 7 and 8 of the brief).1
The section 103 rejections
Concerning the section 103 rejection based upon Baiker
alone, the examiner points to nothing and we find nothing
1In any further prosecution that may occur, the appellant
and the examiner should address and resolve whether the
examiner’s aforenoted criticism of claim 28 is also applicable
to claims 7 and 17.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007