Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
did not present additional arguments in response to this
particular aspect of the rejection.
After careful review of the examiner’s and the appellants’
arguments, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection. The
definiteness of the claim 1 language “to render a metal value
insoluble” and the claim 14 language “the digestion mixture”
have not been argued by the appellants. For this reason, the
rejection of claims 1 and 14 may be properly sustained on this
ground alone. Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph,
and correspondingly, of dependent claims 2 through 13 and 15
through 17, respectively.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 13
UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st PARAGRAPH
The adequate written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, 1st paragraph, provides that
the specification shall contain a written description
of the invention, and of the manner and process of
making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art
to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and use the same, and shall set
forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of
carrying out his invention.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007