Appeal No. 1998-2349
Application 08/586,874
The amount of excess in appellant’s claim 11 can exceed
the stoichiometric quantity by an amount as small as an
infinitesimal amount. In our view, the disclosure that the
amount can be stoichiometric or less additionally would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of
an amount which exceeds the stoichiometric amount by only an
infinitesimal degree. The reason is that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably expected the
performance of the reducing agent, whether added in the
stoichiometric amount or an amount which differs from it by
only an infinitesimal degree, to be essentially the same. See
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ
773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant argues that the amount of excess reducing agent
would have to be significantly above stoichiometric if one
wanted to remove chlorine and additional halogen (brief, page
7). Appellant’s claim 11, however, does not require that a
halogen other than chlorine be removed. Moreover, regarding
the rejection over Wilson in view of Takatomi, the examiner
argues that Wilson discloses use of excess reducing agent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007