Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
and teaching at page 16, last sentence, and page 23, ll. 4-
11.4
The only basis presented by the examiner to support the
indefiniteness of “equilibrium controlled” is that “the closed
system required for equilibrium is not present.” Answer, page
3. However, as noted by appellants on pages 13-14 of the
Brief, the specification defines the term “equilibrium
controlled” (page 1, ll. 4-14) and further discloses
representative equilibrium controlled reactions (page 29, ll.
1-12). Therefore we determine that the examiner has failed to
present a prima facie case that one of ordinary skill in this
art would not have been apprised of the scope of the language
in question.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of unpatentability regarding the
indefiniteness of the language in question. Accordingly, the
4Appellants quote this passage on page 13 of the Brief
but mistakenly cite page 26, ll. 4-11 (see the Brief, page 12,
last line).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007