Appeal No. 2004-0407
Application No. 09/062,053
II. Claims 8 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for lack of enablement with regard to absorption
of essence from the noncondensibles portion of a cooled
vapor stream.
III. Claims 1, 3-14, and 24-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness with regard to the
scope of the phrase “a manner which degrades the quality of
essence.”
IV. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 13, 24-27, and 29-32 stand rejected
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being anticipated by, or obvious over, Sommi.
V. Claims 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious from Sommi in view of Kellogg.
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of
the opposing positions taken by the appellants and by the
examiner. Having done so, we shall affirm rejections III, IV and
V as set forth above. However, we reverse rejections I and II.
The basis for our decision is as follows:
REJECTION I
This rejection is reversed. The phrase in question
represents a colorable attempt to describe, in general terms,
appellants’ clear objective of avoiding degradation of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007