Appeal 2007-1943
Application 10/443,649
With regard to Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15, Appellants state (Br., p. 8), “The
deficiencies of Didchenko et al. have been pointed out and will not be
repeated.” We note Appellants focused exclusively on Claims 1 and 11 in
their Supplemental Brief On Appeal (SBr. 2-3).
Claims 1 and 11 are reproduced below (Br. App’x):
1. A method for producing a low sulfur and low polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) petroleum pitch feedstock comprising:
hydrotreating a supply of petroleum feedstock of relatively high
sulfur content fractions derived from crude oil having an initial sulfur
content of about 1 wt% or greater, and
producing a resulting, low PAH, low sulfur petroleum pitch
feedstock having a sulfur content less than 1 wt% and less than 15,000
mg/kg of PAH.
11. A low sulfur petroleum pitch feedstock produced by
severely hydrotreating a supply of petroleum feedstock of relatively
high sulfur content fractions derived from crude oil having an initial
sulfur content of about 2 wt% or greater, and
producing a resulting, low PAH, low sulfur petroleum pitch
feedstock having a sulfur content less than 1 wt% and less than 15,000
mg/kg of PAH.
Claim Interpretation
“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “The reason is simply that during
patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be
recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification
imposed.” Id. “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion
claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous.” Id at 322, 13
USPQ2d at 1322. “Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013