Appeal No. 2000-0012
Application No. 09/024,413
Appellant also points out that "[t]he Carnahan patent also
discloses using sodium nitrate as a catalyst" (page 7 of Brief,
paragraph 2). We concur with the examiner, however, that
Carnahan's use of the term "catalyst" in describing sodium
nitrate is in keeping with the small amount used. Manifestly,
Carnahan's description of the reaction between the nitrate ion
with the sulphide moiety of a copper-iron sulphide belies the
meaning of the term "catalyst" in its classical sense. As
discussed above, Carnahan teaches the use of sodium nitrate for
the same purpose recited in claim 9 on appeal, namely, to speed
the dissolution of copper from the ore. Also, appealed claim 1
does not preclude the sodium nitrate as functioning as a
catalyst.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7
and 9, as a group, and claim 8. Appellant presents the separate
argument at page 8 of the Brief that "[c]laims 6, 7, and 9 each
distinguish over the prior art in the recitation of the
conditioning step." In fact, claim 9 recites no such step. Only
claims 6 and 7 specify a conditioning step. However, although
appellant states that the conditioning step "is not addressed in
the Examiner's final rejection" (page 8 of Brief, penultimate
paragraph), the examiner has not offered a response to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007