Appeal 2007-3543
Application 10/675,138
Specification evinces which additional components and ingredients are
deleterious to the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention
and thus, are excluded from the claims by reason of the transitional term
“consisting essentially of.” See PPG Indus., 156 F.3d at 1354, 48 USPQ2d
at 1353-354; Herz, 537 F.2d at 551-52, 190 USPQ at 463.
The “material” as claimed must, of course, contain “antimony silicate
doped with one or more elements selected from the group consisting of
tungsten, niobium, and tantalum.” We agree with Appellants’ interpretation,
as set forth in their contentions, as we find no disclosure in the written
description in the Specification which would indicate to one of ordinary skill
in this art that the term “antimony silicate” is used in a manner other than as
used in the art, and thus, as claimed, it is antimony silicate per se that is
doped with one or more of tungsten, niobium, and tantalum. In claim 17,
couched in product-by-process format, the additional process language
further characterizes the doped antimony silicate as the product prepared
from the source compounds in the presence of an acid. See, e.g., In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We find Bedard would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the
art a process of using specified molecular sieves to remove metal ions from
a liquid stream, wherein the molecular sieve falls within the empirical
formula A((4-4n)(n)(MxTi1-zGey)4(Ge1-pSip)qOr, wherein A can be an
exchangeable cation and M is niobium, tantalum, antimony, or mixtures
thereof (Bedard, e.g., col. 1, ll. 13-17, and col. 2, ll. 42-64). Bedard further
discloses “[g]enerally, the hydrothermal process used to prepare the
intergrowth molecular sieves . . . involves forming a reaction mixture . . .
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013