Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
appellants’ claim 1. Also, claim 36 of Bender teaches the use of
a mixture of reductants, which includes sulfide materials and
carbonaceous materials (Bender, column 55, lines 8 through 10).
Examples of carbonaceous materials include coal (id, column 9,
line 7). Accordingly, the sulfide material meets the reducing
agent limitation of claim 1, while the carbonaceous material
meets the carbon source limitation of that claim.
Regarding the appellants’ second argument, the appellants’
position that the mixture of sulfide and carbonaceous materials
appear to come from a single source, rather than more than one
source, and thus, cannot be a reducing agent and carbon source
within the meaning of claim 1, is not well taken. It is a
general proposition that, during examination, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). There is no claim limitation that the
reducing agent and the carbon source originate from different
sources. Nor does the specification constrain us to adopt the
narrower interpretation urged by the appellants. Claim 1 only
requires the presence of a reducing agent and a carbon source
(Brief, Paper No. 16, Appendix, claim 1). Therefore, we are not
persuaded by the appellants’ second argument.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007