Appeal No. 1998-1568
Application No. 08/336,352
and 7 were amended subsequent to the final Office action dated
November 25, 1996, Paper No. 5.
Claims 1 and 7 are representative of the subject matter
on appeal and read as follows:
1. A method of formulating a strong oxidizing
solution of Caro's acid which comprises the steps of:
(a) formulating a strong oxidizing solution of
Caro's acid by mixing about 2 to 5 percent PDSA by volume
with concentrated sulfuric acid in the ratio of about 1
part PDSA: 8 parts sulfuric acid by volume to about 1
part PDSA: 20 parts sulfuric acid by volume; and
(b) storing said strong oxidizing solution in a
container having a space over said solution containing
one of a vacuum or a non-oxidizing atmosphere inert to
said oxidizing solution.
7. A method of formulating a strong oxidizing
solution of Caro's acid which comprises the steps of:
appealed.” Appellants also stated in the subsequent sentence
in the same Brief that “[n]o other claims exist; no claims are
allowed.” However, Appendix A contains claims 1 through 4 and
7 through 10 which are the only claims actually pending in
this application. The Brief at pages 3 and 4 also discusses
only the propriety of the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4 and 7 through 10. Moreover, appellants clearly
stated in their Notice of Appeal dated February 28, 1997,
Paper No. 8, that they appealed from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 7 through 10. Further,
the examiner was not prejudiced by appellants’ misstatement
since he recognized that the appeal involved the rejection of
claims 1 through 4 and 7 through 10 as is apparent from page 1
of the Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007