Appeal No. 2001-0421
Application 08/926,835
These shortcomings aside, our review of the matter leaves us
in a quandary as to how to interpret the claims. According to
the examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1
includes both the in situ formation of an acid as well as the
addition of an exogenous acid. According to appellants, the
phrase “additionally contains an acid” should be interpreted as
limited to the addition of an exogenous acid. We cannot say that
the specification clearly supports either the appellants’ or the
examiner’s interpretation.
As noted above, the specification does not use explicit
language which supports appellants’ proposed interpretation of
the claims. However, the examples are limited to the addition of
an exogenous acid. There is no antecedent support for “the
reaction mixture.” As to the claim reciting positive, active
method steps, one can only guess how to implement the
“additionally contain an acid” proviso of the process claims. In
sum, it is apparent that a material issue of claim interpretation
is present which must be resolved before the merits of the
examiner’s and the appellants’ positions can be properly
considered.
examiners upon applications for patents”).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007