Appeal 2006-2490
Application 10/238,791
and preferred option for product removal, the solid cake of salt [sic,] Ti, and
Na is vacuum distilled to remove the Na” (Specification 8, italics added).
Accordingly, this is evidence that the powder elemental material (Ti), the
halide salt (salt), and liquid alkali metal (sodium or Na) mixture is a solid
cake, not a gel. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any gel has been
formed which was subject to a cooling step to form a solid.
Therefore, based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of Appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence does not support Appellants’ position that gel
formation is an inherent property of the claimed process. Accordingly, we
determine that Appellants have not met their burden of proof. The rejection
of claims 95-128 for failing to fulfill the written description requirement of §
112, first paragraph, is therefore affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
hh
HARRY M. LEVY
EMRICH & DITHMAR, LLC
125 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 2080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-4401
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: November 3, 2007