Appeal No. 2003-1783
Application No. 09/560,472
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Hubbell. We affirm the rejection of claims 5,
6, 8, 12, 61, 64 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Humphries. We reverse the
rejections of claims 13 and 14; claims 15-19, and claims 20-23 and 66 over Humphries.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’
Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
incomplete and omitting essential steps.
The examiner argues that claim 5 is indefinite because there is no correlation
between the preamble of the method claim and the body of the claim. Specifically, the
examiner argues that the claim is a method claim for reducing adsorption but there is no
correlation step reciting how this is done. Appellants argue that the claim clearly recites
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007