Appeal No. 2003-1830
Application 09/534,101
(CCPA 1977) (“Because any sample of Hansford’s calcined zeolitic catalyst would necessarily be
cooled to facilitate subsequent handling, the conclusion of the examiner that such cooling is
encompassed by the terms of the appealed claims was reasonable. . . . [T]he board necessarily
considered Hansford’s disclosure of a gas ‘stream’ as equivalent to a disclosure of the removal of
generated ammonia from contact with the zeolite.”). Because the examiner has not carried this
burden with respect to the claimed product encompassed by the zone limitation and all of the
other limitations of appealed claim 1, we reverse the ground of rejection with respect to appealed
claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 13.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007