Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
The examiner rejected claim 1 as indefinite, because the
language “‘being recovered and one or more additional metal
values’ is awkward and confusing as to exactly what is being
claimed” (Answer, Paper No. 19, page 4). The examiner also takes
the position that the language “‘to render a metal value
insoluble’ is indefinite as to which metal value is referred to”
and “indefinite as to what it is rendered insoluble in” (id).
The examiner rejected claim 14 as indefinite, because the
language “‘the digestion mixture’ lacks proper antecedent basis
in the claim” (id).2
In response to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on
the language “being recovered and one or more additional metal
values,” the appellants maintain the position that
the original language of claim 1, as noted above, was
not indefinite because “metal values being recovered”
and “one or more additional metal values” are definite
phrases which clearly recited the claimed invention, in
view of the language of claim 1 as pending and
Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] specification. . . .
[T]he rejection of claim 1 on this basis was in error
. . . (Brief, Paper No. 16, page 9).
2Regarding claim 14, the examiner suggested inserting “--a digesting
mixture comprising-- between ‘form an’ in line 9" (Answer, Paper No. 19, page
4). The examiner also suggested inserting “--a temperature of-- after
‘attain’” in line 11 (id).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007