Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
Cir. 1992). With respect to the phrase “predetermined time
sequence,” the examiner has not met this initial burden of
establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
be apprised of the scope of the claim, keeping in mind that
the claim must be read in light of the specification. See the
specification, page 20, where the predetermined time sequences
are exemplified, and page 26, where the sequence periods are
explained.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established that the claimed language is indefinite
and unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art when read in
light of the specification. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2,
is reversed.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1
The examiner finds that there is no support for the
specific negative limitation “wherein the weakly adsorbing
purge fluid is a fluid other than a CO-enriched fluid” in part
(c), step (3), of claim 1 on appeal (Answer, page 3).
Appellants submit that there is implicit basis or support for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007