Appeal 2007-3543
Application 10/675,138
results were obtained utilizing titanium doped antimony silicate” and thus
that “titanium has a materially detrimental effect on antimony silicate being
able to extract metal ions in an aqueous solution” (id. 12-13; see also Reply
Br. 2-3). With respect to the process for preparing doped antimony silicate
specified in claim 17, Appellants contend “the working examples of
[Bedard] indicate that the reaction to prepare the molecular sieve is
performed in media that has a pH of about 12” and claim 17 specifies “the
use of an acid” (id. 14; original emphasis omitted).
We interpret claims 17 and 22 by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written
description in the Specification unless another meaning is intended by
Appellants as established therein, and without reading into the claim any
disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1666-667 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-055, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
The plain language of claim 22 specifies a method of extracting
metals comprising at least contacting an aqueous solution with any amount
of any material consisting essentially of antimony silicate doped with one or
more elements selected from the group consisting of tungsten, niobium, and
amendment was denied entry in the Advisory action mailed June 6, 2006.
We note Appellants filed the Notice of Appeal on June 22, 2006.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013