Appeal 2007-1629
Application 10/138,337
appeal is of claims 1-13 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
(Br. 3). The Examiner contends claims 1 and 10 contain terms which render
the scope of the claims indefinite. Claims 1 and 10 read as follows:
1. A process for the purification of triethylenediamine
(TEDA) in which TEDA is vaporized and the gaseous TEDA is
passed into a liquid solvent and is subsequently crystalized
from this, wherein the mother liquor obtained after the TEDA
has been crystalized is extracted with an extractant which is
immiscible or only slightly miscible with the solvent of the
mother liquor and in which TEDA is readily soluble, and the
TEDA-depleted mother liquor obtained after extraction is
returned to the process and reused as organic solvent into which
gaseous TEDA is passed, and/or the TEDA-enriched extractant
which has been used for the extraction is returned to the
process, and reused for extraction.
10. The process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the solvent
used in the crystallization step is selected from the group
consisting of cyclic and acyclic hydrocarbons, chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols,
ketones, aliphatic carboxylic acids, aliphatic nitriles and esters.
DISCUSSION
A specification must conclude with claims “particularly pointing out
and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (2000). 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, “is essentially a requirement for precision and
definiteness of claim language.” PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian
Industries Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, 37 USPQ2d 1618, 1621 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909, 164 USPQ 642, 646
(CCPA 1970)). The language of the claims must make it clear what subject
matter they encompass. The “purpose is to provide those who would
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013