Appeal No. 2003-0870 Page 3
Application No. 09/046,740
variation of various conditions are expressly taught in the references, absent evidence
to the contrary” (Answer, page 5).
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete exposition of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, neither of these rejections can be sustained.
As previously indicated, the § 112, first paragraph, rejection for lack of written
description support is based on the examiner’s concern that “[a]ppellants are claiming a
temperature range of at least 56°C and no more than 80°C . . .” (Answer at page 3).
The examiner’s statement is not entirely accurate. In fact, the slurry temperature range
defined by the appealed independent claims ranges from a minimum “initial
temperature of at least about room temperature” to a maximum “process temperature
of at least 56°C and not more than 80°C” (step (d) of claims 7 and 9). Thus, the “at
least 56°C and not more 80°C” (id.) temperatures about which the examiner is
concerned represent the maximum slurry temperatures of the overall range claimed by
the appellants.
When the temperatures of concern are viewed in this light, they clearly do not
offend the written description requirement set forth in the first paragraph of § 112. This
is because, as pointed out by the appellants in their Brief, lines 8-9 on specification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007