Appeal No. 1997-1793 Application No. 08/528,044 produced mixed oxide TiO PF .” Also, it is not clear whether 2 2 the phrase “pyrogenically produced” is indicative of the production process as broadly recited in appealed claim 2 or claim 3. Similarly, it is not certain whether the comparative mixed oxide is in fact made by a process which corresponds to the process as described in Hattori. The examiner and the appellants should fully explore these issues. 2. JP ‘825: With respect to JP ‘825, which was published on December 14, 1993, the examiner should first determine whether the document qualifies as prior art against the claimed subject matter. In this regard, we initially note that the present application is a continuation of Application No. 08/181,426 filed on January 14, 1994. However, we also observe that the appellants have claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. � 119 to German Patent Application No. P 43 02 896.9 filed February 2, 1993. Although the examiner has indicated on the face of the file wrapper that the appellants have met the conditions of 35 U.S.C. � 119, we do not find an accurate English language translation of the priority document pursuant to 37 CFR � 1.55 (1997) in the record. Nor do we find any entry in the 17Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007