Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 5
Application No. 10/925,646
present invention, before the DAHA is introduced, the closed loop system is treated with
an oxygen scavenger to remove oxygen and chlorine and other oxidizing compounds
from the system. The oxygen scavenger is preferably added in a quantity sufficient to
reduce substantially all of any compound or compounds present that could oxidize
dialkylhydroxylamine to avoid consumption of the DAHA.” Page 5, lines 13-17. At
paragraph 18, the specification states that “[t]he DAHA is introduced into a closed loop
system after the oxygen and other oxidizing agents have been scavenged.” Page 6,
lines 9-10.
These statements describe a method in which oxygen scavenger is added before
DAHA. However, we do not agree that these statements limit the method defined by
the pending claims. First, both of the cited passages are found in the section of the
specification headed “Description of the Preferred Embodiments,” indicating that
performing the steps recited in claim 1 sequentially is merely a preferred embodiment of
the disclosed method. Second, these statements do not indicate that the method
cannot be effectively used if the steps are conducted in a different order, such as if the
steps are conducted simultaneously. In particular, these statements do not indicate that
the addition of oxygen scavenger at the same time as DAHA would not reduce the
consumption of DAHA by oxygen compounds. Therefore, we conclude that these
statements are insufficient to “directly or implicitly” require that the steps of claim 1 be
performed in the order in which they are written.
Appellants also argue that, “[i]n the response to the office action, filed on May [sic,
April] 5, 2005, the two step aspect of the claims of the present invention was made clear
in the arguments over the Examiner’s section 112 rejections.” Reply Brief, pages 5-6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007