Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
Regarding the appellants’ third argument, claim 1 does not
limit the use of carbon as a catalyst. It merely requires its
presence (id). The discussion pertaining to “broadest reasonable
interpretation” in the previous paragraph applies equally here.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by the appellants’ argued
distinction in the role of their carbon source.
Regarding the appellants’ fourth argument, claim 1 requires
“a reducing agent to render a metal value insoluble” (Brief,
Paper No. 16, Appendix, claim 1). The appellants’ specification
teaches that the reducing agent (iron) does not directly make a
metal value (uranium) insoluble as the claim language suggests.
Rather, the presence of the reducing agent (iron) plays an
indirect role in the precipitation of uranium. The uranium is
reduced from U6+ to U4+ in the presence of iron so that it can
react with fluoride ions to form UF4, which is insoluble
(Specification, page 3, lines 29 through 36, page 4, lines 1
through 2).
Bender teaches the precipitation of metals, including iron,
manganese, zinc, and lead (Bender, column 13, line 49, column 17,
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007