Appeal No. 2001-2272 Page 4
Application No. 08/809,719
Likewise, dependent claim 28 recites "the temperature is [sic] range is from about -5 to
about 5°;" and, again, dependent claim 30 recites "cooling to about - 10° to about 15°."
Respecting all these claim recitations, the examiner argues that "[i]t is unclear what
temperature scale is intended by the claim [sic] invention." (Paper No. 14, page 4). We
disagree.
As stated in In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983)
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and that claim language should be read
in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. [citations omitted]
Here, applicant's specification clearly states that "[a]ll temperatures are in degrees
Centigrade" (specification, page 3, line 31). Accordingly, when applicant's claim
language is read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art, we think that there can be no doubt that all temperatures are in degrees
Centigrade.
The rejection of claims 18 through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is reversed.
The premise of the examiner's prior art rejection is that Anelli discloses the use
of 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl (TEMPO) in the oxidation of primary alcohols to
aldehydes. See Paper No. 14, page 5, second complete paragraph ("Anelli et al. teach
the oxidation of primary alcohols to the corresponding aldehydes in the presence of
tetramethyl-piperidine-1-oxyl-[TEMPO], methylene chloride, sodium hypochlorite,
sodium bicarbonate and potassium bromide (see the entire article)"). The examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007