Appeal 2006-2419
Application 10/238,297
Office Action dated Apr. 29, 2005, page 1). We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a gel formed
during the process described in the parent application, now U.S. Patent No.
5,779,761, and a solid formed from the gel (Br. 2). Independent claim 24
and dependent claim 26 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced
below:
24. A gel of titanium powder having a sponge or porous
morphology and a halide salt and liquid alkali metal or liquid alkaline
earth metal or mixtures thereof.
26. The gel of claim 24 cooled to a solid.
Claims 21-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Answer 3). This
is the only rejection in this appeal (Br. 2).1
Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of
Appellants’ arguments and the Jacobsen Declaration (Exhibit A attached to
the Brief), we AFFIRM the rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that the claims contain subject matter which was
not described in the original specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the
1 We note similar rejections and issues have been the subject of Appeal No. 2005-1905
(Application No. 10/125,988) and Appeal No. 2006-0902 (Application No. 10/125,942),
with Decisions mailed in these Appeals on Oct. 21, 2005, and June 23, 2006,
respectively. We also note an Appeal in related Application No. 10/238,791, and we
have considered abandoned Application No. 08/283,358 (filed Aug. 1, 1994) and related
U.S. Patent Nos. 5,779,761; 5,958,106; and 6,409,797.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007