Appeal 2007-3543
Application 10/675,138
We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claims 17 and 22 illustrate Appellants’ invention of a method of
extracting metal ions from an aqueous solution, and are representative of the
claims on appeal:
17. A method of extracting metal ions from an aqueous solution
comprising contacting the aqueous solution with a material consisting
essentially of antimony silicate doped with one or more elements selected
from the group consisting of tungsten, niobium, and tantalum which material
has been obtained by reacting together in a liquid medium a silicon
containing compound, an antimony containing compound and a compound
containing one or more of the elements in the presence of an acid.
22. A method of extracting metal ions from an aqueous solution
comprising contacting the aqueous solution with a material consisting
essentially of antimony silicate doped with one or more elements selected
from the group consisting of tungsten, niobium, and tantalum.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Dietz US 5,888,398 Mar. 30, 1999
Bedard US 5,858,243 Jan. 12, 1999
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Supp. Br. 7-8):
Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bedard (Answer 3);
Claims 2 through 4, 17 through 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bedard (id. 3-4); and
Claims 7, 9, 10, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bedard as applied and further in view of Dietz (id. 3-4).
We decide this appeal based on independent claims 17 and 22, the
remaining claims dependent on claim 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
The dispositive issues are the interpretation to be made of the
language “a material consisting essentially of antimony silicate doped with
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013