Appeal No. 2001-1440
Application 08/931,635
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3-26 and affirm the
rejection of claims 27-33.
Claim construction
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190
USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190
USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
The appellant’s specification divides solutions into three
groups: aqueous, semiaqueous (containing water and organic
solvent), and organic (page 3, lines 14-21; page 5, lines 6-10;
page 7, lines 5-11; page 9, lines 5-11). Hence, we interpret
“aqueous solution” in the appellant’s claims as being a solution
which contains no organic solvent.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-6 and 8-26
Hermann discloses a method for preparing lithium chloride by
reacting lithium sulfate with sodium chloride or potassium
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007