Appeal No. 1996-1132
Application 08/217,752
We cannot agree. Claim 1 does not require that step (iii) occur before and
separate from step (iv) as the Appellants seem to think. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants’ burden
to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”). Appealed claim 1 does not
require the azine product to be removed from the circulating reaction medium prior
to heating to a temperature of at least 130/C. Claim 1 also does not require the
circulating reaction medium to be devoid of azine when heated to a temperature of
at least 130/C. According to the specification, page 9, the azine can be removed by
a distillation process. The specification, page 10, also discloses distillation is
suitable for removing water from the circulating reaction medium. Unless the steps
of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require
a particular order. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d
1323, 1342, 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding no order required).
The present record does not indicate that azine is not be removed while the heating
circulating reaction medium.
In summary, we have reconsidered our decision in light of all of the
arguments made in the appellants’ request. However, we see no compelling reason
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007