Appeal No. 2004-0407
Application No. 09/062,053
essence before the mash is subjected to essence recovery
operations. With that objective in mind, the application
specifically identifies three different types of treatments that
may degrade the quality of the essence which is to be removed
from the mash and subsequently recovered (p. 3, ll. 3-11 and 26-
31). To comply with the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, it is not necessary that the application
describe the claimed invention in ipsis verbis. In re Lukach,
442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971).
REJECTION II
This rejection is also reversed. In rejecting claims 8 and
33 for lack of an enabling disclosure, the examiner incorrectly
assumes that these claims require absorption of absolutely all
residual essence from the noncondensible portion of the cooled
vapor stream. As we read these claims, all that is required is
that the vapor stream be subjected to an absorption operation to
maximize the amount of essence components in the noncondensible
portion of the cooled vapor stream which are condensed. This
absorption operation (conducted in a scrubber system) is
discussed in great detail in appellants’ application (p. 6, l. 5-
p. 7, l. 11).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007