Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
invention pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.116. See Attached
Copy of 37 C.F.R. 1.116 Amendment (Brief, Paper No. 16,
pages 11 through 12).
Next, the appellants, in essence, argue that even if a
reductant (e.g. carbonaceous material) can also be a carbon
source, “Bender does not teach or disclose the use of more than
one reductant source at any point in the specification, including
the examples (id, page 16). The appellants state that
the term “mixtures thereof” as used in claim 36 likely
refers to a raw mineral, such as an ore, a mining
waste, or a milling waste, that contains both sulfide
materials and carbonaceous materials (Brief, Paper No.
16, page 12).
Third, the appellants attempt to distinguish their carbon
source from the one in Bender by arguing that
[t]he present invention also differs from Bender in its
use of carbon. Carbonaceous materials are used as a
reductant in Bender when the ore containing precious
metals is an MnO2 ore. See Bender, 5:28-31. In
contrast, the carbon source in the present invention is
used as a catalyst in the reduction of uranium
initiated by a separate reductant, such as iron. . . .
Since different materials are being reduced, uranium in
the present invention and manganese in Bender, the role
of carbon in the respective processes is also different
(Brief, Paper No. 16, page 12).
Fourth, the appellants attempt to distinguish from Bender
the operation of their reducing agent. The appellants argue
[t]he present invention also differs from Bender in
relation to the operation of the reducing agent. The
reducing agent in the present invention renders a metal
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007