Appeal No. 2001-1440
Application 08/931,635
360, 364 (CCPA 1962). We therefore reverse the rejection of
claim 7.
Rejection of claims 27-33
The appellant states that claims 27-33 stand or fall
together (brief, page 5). We therefore limit our discussion of
the rejection of claims 27-33 to one claim in this group, i.e.,
claim 27. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d
1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
In Hermann’s example II, 21.8 g KCl are reacted with 16.5 g
Li2SO4 at 25ēC in 100 ml n-butanol saturated with water, and
solids are removed from the solution. At 25ēC the solubility of
water in n-butanol is 20.5 wt%.1 Hence, the n-butanol contains
16.6 g or 0.92 moles water. Based upon complete reaction of the
Li2SO4 to LiCl, the product contains 0.30 moles LiCl. The molar
ratio of water to LiCl, therefore, is 3, which falls within the
scope of the appellant’s claim 27.2 Hermann’s example II,
therefore, at least would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, water/LiCl molar ratios within the
1 21 Kirk-Othmer Encyclo. Chem. Tech. 378-79 (John Wiley &
Sons, 3rd ed. 1983). A copy of this reference is provided to the
appellant with this decision.
2 This ratio would be higher for incomplete reaction of
Li2SO4 to LiCl.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007