9
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa,
537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Our construction of the subject matter defined by appellants’ claim 19 is that
the claimed subject matter is directed to a “modified” alumina. The appellant argues
that Gladrow ‘309 does not disclose the modified alumina as defined by the present
invention. We agree. The specification states, that, “[a]ccording to the invention, the
modified alumina is prepared by means of a process involving contacting a hydrated
o o
alumina at a temperature in the range of 25 to 110 C for a period of 1 to 100
hours with an aqueous solution of a monocarboxylic acid having from 1 to 3 carbon
atoms, preferably selected from the group consisting of formic acid, acetic acid and
propionic acid, the end pH being about 4 or less, and isolating the solid reaction
product.”
The appellant properly directs the Board’s attention to column 5, lines 1-17 of
Gladrow ‘309 wherein the alumina of that invention, in contrast, is prepared by
reacting sodium silicate with aluminum sulfate. We find that there is no disclosure or
suggestion of treating or reacting alumina with a monocarboxylic acid having 1 to 3
carbon atoms.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007