Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
In response to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on
the language “to render a metal value insoluble,” the appellants
state that
In the accompanying amendment sought, Appellant [sic,
Appellants] has clarified this phrase by substituting
the phrase “to render the one of more additional metal
values insoluble in the digestion mixture.” Appellant
[sic, Appellants] asserts that the clarifying language
is not indefinite, and request that the amendment be
entered and the rejection withdrawn (Brief, Paper No.
page 9).
We note that the “accompanying amendment” filed by the appellants
on May 20, 1999 was not entered by the examiner (Answer, Paper
No. 19, page 2). We also note that the appellants did not
present additional arguments in response to this particular
aspect of the rejection.
In response to the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 based on
the language “the digestion mixture,” the appellants state that
In the accompanying amendment sought, Appellant [sic,
Appellants] has incorporated the changes suggested by
the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellant [sic, Appellants]
requests that the amendment be entered and the
rejection withdrawn (Brief, Paper No. 16, page 9).
Again, we note that the “accompanying amendment” filed by the
appellants on May 20, 1999 was not entered by the examiner
(Answer, Paper No. 19, page 2). We also note that the appellants
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007