Appeal No. 1998-1219
Application 08/419,317
prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of
skill in the pertinent art.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498,
501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976), quoting from In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner has stated that the term “equilibrium
controlled” and the word “predetermined” in claim 1 on appeal
are unclear (Answer, page 3).
It is well settled that the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of unpatentability, based on prior art or
any other ground, rests with the examiner. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The only basis the examiner has presented to establish the
indefiniteness of “equilibrium controlled” is that the claimed
process is not a closed system required for equilibrium, thus
rendering the claimed language unclear (Answer, page 3).
However, as noted by appellants on pages 8-9 of the Brief, the
specification defines the term “equilibrium controlled” (page
1, l. 13-page 2, l. 2) and furthermore discloses
representative equilibrium controlled reactions (page 2, ll.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007