Appeal No. 1998-2228
Application No. 08/523,405
attributable to reacting a metal oxide with the cerium oxide
(claim 25) or reacting a metal oxide with the alumina sorbent
substrate (claim 26).
We also agree with the examiner that there is inadequate
support in the specification for the entire class of “metal
oxide[s]” encompassed by claims 25-26.
II.
With regard to the rejection under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, appellants acknowledge that the Markush group of
oxides in claim 16 is presently in improper form. Although
appellants express a willingness to amend claim 16 in order to
cure the defect, the rejection of claim 16 as it now stands is
appropriate.
As for claim 25, since there is no description of an
increase in absorption capacity being attributable to reaction of
a metal oxide with cerium oxide as noted above with respect to
the 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph rejection, the meaning and
significance of “increased absorption capability” cannot be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007