Appeal No. 1998-2257
Application 08/692,310
the appellants’ specification and the prior art, fails to set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. The examiner’s mere
assertion that the figures do not set forth the alloy to which
they apply is not such an explanation. Moreover, the
descriptive titles of the figures which show that
figures 36(B) and 37-39 pertain to AuZn, figures 40 and 41
pertain to AuCu, and figure 42 pertains to ZnCu, indicate that
the examiner’s assertion is incorrect.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rieke
in view of Dye ‘180 or the Dye article,
further in view of Kilner and Nakajima
The examiner argues (answer, pages 4-5) that Rieke
discloses producing finely divided powders by the reduction of
metal salts and that convenient systems of reducing agents and
solvents include potassium and tetrahydrofuran, sodium and
1,2-dimethoxyethane, and sodium or potassium with benzene or
toluene (page 1261), the Dye article discloses electrides as
reductants (page 1555), Dye ‘180 discloses alkali metal anion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007