Ex Parte Lang et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1629                                                                             
                Application 10/138,337                                                                       
                crystallized from the solvent, and extracted.  Similarly, it is clear that                   
                “returned to the process” in the second occurrence means – as expressly                      
                stated – that the extractant is “reused for extraction” in the claimed process.              
                By stating that the solvent or extractant is “returned to the process,” it is                
                quite clear that they are cycled (Spec. 3: 1-8) back into the TEDA                           
                purification process which is recited in claim 1.  Thus, we conclude that                    
                claim 1 conforms to the statutory requirements of §112, second paragraph.                    
                      For claim 10, the Examiner contends:                                                   
                      It is not clear what Appellants actually mean by the term ‘cyclic                      
                      ... hydrocarbons’ in claim 10, because their remarks have                              
                      rendered this term indefinite.  In its plain meaning this would                        
                      be perfectly clear, as it would cover any group which is both a                        
                      hydrocarbon and is cyclic. However, earlier remarks (paper of                          
                      11/20/2003) stated, “One of ordinary skill in the art would not                        
                      refer [to aromatic cyclic hydrocarbons] benzene, toluene, xylem                        
                      [sic, xylene], naphthalene etc., as a cyclic hydrocarbon.”  This                       
                      is an utterly baffling assertion, made without any substantiation                      
                      whatsoever. These four are unquestionably cyclic and these are                         
                      unquestionably hydrocarbons, so of course one of ordinary skill                        
                      in the art would refer to them as cyclic hydrocarbons. It is                           
                      therefore clear that Appellants intend some specialized (more                          
                      narrow) meaning of ‘cyclic . . . hydrocarbons’ which is                                
                      markedly different from its literal meaning, is order to exclude                       
                      those four.                                                                            
                (Answer 4-5 (emphasis added).)                                                               
                      We disagree with the Examiner that Appellants’ remarks have the                        
                effect of rendering the claim term “cyclic . . . hydrocarbons” indefinite under              
                § 112, second paragraph.  During prosecution, claims are given their                         
                broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood by persons                    
                of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the Specification.  See, e.g., In re            
                Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re                    

                                                     4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013