Appeal No. 2001-0405
Application No. 09/169,087
possible with the here claimed process, the aforementioned
argument nevertheless is unpersuasive. This is for the simple
reason that the independent claim on appeal has been drafted so
broadly that it encompasses the less yield-efficient process of
Klingler.
As further support for their contrary view, the appellants
present on page 3 of the reply brief the argument set forth
below:
In short, in Klingler et al’s process, a certain
minimal amount of MNT must be present in the reaction
vessel during the concentration step and consequently
will be present in the vapor generated during removal
of water. In Appellants’ process, MNT need only be
added to vapor generated during removal of water to
concentrate the reaction mixture.
Appellants’ submit that Klingler et al’s process
in which MNT is present in two stages does not
inherently teach their process in which MNT need be
present in only one stage.
This argument also is unpersuasive for reasons analogous to
those expressed above. More specifically, the appealed
independent claim before us does not exclude the presence of MNT
“in two stages” and thus is not limited to the presence of MNT
“in only one stage.”
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in
the answer, we will sustain the examiner’s section 102(b)
rejection of claims 1-11 as being anticipated by Klingler.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007