Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
for the use of the sulfuric acid solution to “render
the one or more additional metal values insoluble” as
is now instantly claimed. The phrase “to render . . .
metal value(s) insoluble” is taken to mean to
precipitate metal values, and nowhere is there support
for this in the sections pointed to in the
specification above. Instant pg. 3, lines 29-34
supports precipitating UF4 but that only occurs when
fluoride ion and uranium are present in the process,
however the instant claims do not require either”
(Answer, Paper No. 19, pages 5 through 6).
We note that the language “to render a metal value insoluble”
and “being recovered and render the one or more additional values
insoluble” were added by amendment on February 26, 1998 (Paper
No. 9, page 1).
In response to the examiner’s rejection, the appellants
argue that the
language of claim 1, is supported throughout
Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] specification, e.g. at
page 2, lines 16-28; at page 3, lines 13-28; and in the
Examples. Accordingly, the Examiner’s final rejection
of claims 1-13 as allegedly containing new matter was
in error (Brief, Paper No. 16, page 8).
After careful review of the examiner’s and the appellants’
arguments, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection. The
language “being recovered and render the one or more additional
metal values insoluble” suggests that more than one metal value
may be precipitated. However, the specification only discloses
the precipitation of one metal, uranium. Thus, the specification
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007