Appellants argue that such a fact has no legal significance because not even the impure compounds were known to exist and to be in possession of the public ***. However, prior knowledge is a requirement of $102, but there is no requirement that a naturally occurring compound must be known or in possession of the public to negate novelty under $101. Certainly, an unknown compound or composition of materials merely discovered from nature is not patentable. Funk v. Kalo, 333 U.S. 127, 76 USPQ 280. The solicitor's position seems to hark back to the examiner's view, heretofore summarized, that the present compounds, as claimed, are "naturally occurring" and therefore not "new." At the outset we would observe that what appellants claim-pure PGE2 and pure PGE-is not "naturally occurring." Those compounds, as far as the record establishes, do not exist in nature in pure form, and appellants have neither merely discovered, nor claimed sufficiently broadly to encompass, what has previously existed in fact in nature's storehouse, albeit unknown, or what has previously been known to exist. [2] But quite apart from those considerations, the criteria for determining whether given subject matter is "new" within the meaning of § 101 are no different than the criteria for determining whether that subject matter possesses the "novelty" expressed in the title of § 102. The word "new" in § 101 is defined and is to be construed in accordance with the provisions of § 102.8 Thus, that which possesses statutory novelty under the provisions of § 102 is also new within the intendment of § 101. We have found no evidence of Congressional intent to define the word "new" as used in § 101 in any different manner. Failing to find pure PGE2 and PGE, described in the Bergstrom publication, the board in turn seems to have premised its decision on the inherency of an impure form of PGE2 and PGE, in products resulting from certain procedures that are described in that reference. Appellants argue here, and below, that the board improperly used That such is the case is clear, we think, from House Report No. 1923 and Senate Report No. 1979, 82d Congress, 2d Session, accompanying H.R. 7794 which became the 1952 Patent Act. Both reports state in identical language: Section 101 sets forth the subject matter that can be patented, "subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." The conditions under which a patent may be obtained follow, and section 102 covers the conditions relating to novelty. Section 102 in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) repeats the conditions in the existing law relating to novelty. Section 102, in general, may be said to describe the statutory novelty required for patentability, and includes, in effect, an amplification and definition of "new" in section 101. [Emphasis supplied.] The revision notes to section 101 state: The corresponding section of existing statute [RS 4886] is split into two sections, section 101 relating to the subject matter for which patents may be obtained, and section 102 defining statutory novelty and stating other conditions for patentability. [Emphasis supplied.] their own application as "circumstantial evidence" of that fact. It is appellants' view that the fact of inherency was hidden from the world. until they discovered it, and disclosed it in the present application. We need not decide the merits of that matter," for the fundamental error in the board's position, as we see it, is the analysis and answer it gave to the sole issue it accurately posed-"whether the claimed pure materials are novel as compared with the less pure materials of the reference." [Emphasis supplied.] It seems to us that the answer to that question is self-evident: [3] by definition,10 pure materials necessarily differ from less pure or impure materials and, if the latter are the only ones existing and available as a standard of reference, as seems to be the situation here, perforce the "pure" materials are "new" with respect to them. As this court stated in In re Williams, 36 CCPA 756, 171 F.2d 319, 80 USPQ 150 (1948): In support of the rejection on the ground of lack of novelty, the examiner and the board point out that the compound of the Monatschefte publications is a racemic mixture and, therefore, necessarily contains both dextro rotary and laevo rotary components. It is the position of the Patent Office tribunals that, in view of that fact, the laevo rotary compound, having existed as part of the racemic mixture, cannot be novel. The appealed claim, however, calls for the laevo rotary form "substantially free from the dextro rotary form" and it is evident that the laevo rotary form did not exist in this condition in the mixture of the Monatschefte publications. The existence of a compound as an ingredient of another substance does not negative novelty in a claim to the pure compound, although it may, of course, render the claim unpatentable for lack of invention [now obviousness, § 103]. [Emphasis supplied.] Moreover, whether the claimed pure materials have the same usefulness or assortment of properties as the impure materials of the prior art, as the board here found, is a question having no bearing on the factual and legal matter whether pure materials are new vis-a-vis impure materials within the meaning of § 101, although it is but one of the factors to be considered in determining their obviousness under 35 USC 103. In re Cofer, 53 CCPA 830, 354 F. 2d 664, 148 USPQ 268 (1966). As we observed earlier, no rejection under § 103 appears to be presented, and it thus becomes unnecessary to consider the cases discussed in Cofer and in Ex parte Reed, cited by the board, supra. We conclude that the subject matter claimed by appellants is "new." The decision is reversed. But see In re Naylor, 54 CCPA 902, 369 F. 2d 765, 152 USPQ 106; In re Seaborg, supra. 10 Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1954 defines "pure" as "Separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter; free from mixture or combination * * *. "Impure" is defined as "not pure; specif: ***b. mixed or impregnated with something extraneous 427 F.2d 1384; 166 USPQ 209 IN RE CALVIN M. HAMMACK (No. 8284) PATENTS 1. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS-BY SPECIFICATION AND DRAWINGS IN GENERAL Specification is entitled to reasonable consideration in ascertaining meaning of terminology of claims; however, disclosure cannot be relied upon during prosecution to impart unexpressed limitations into claim or to impart unexpressed restrictions on intangible claim language. 2. CLAIMS-INDEFINITE-IN GENERAL Fact that indefiniteness in claims is of a semantic origin does not render indefiniteness unobjectionable merely because it could have been corrected. 3. PLEADING AND PRACTICE IN PATENT OFFICE-REJECTIONS In rejecting several claims for indefiniteness, it is appropriate for examiner to use some claims as examples in explaining the rejection. 4. CLAIMS INDEFINITE-IN GENERAL Requirement of second paragraph of 35 USC 112 means that claims must make it clear what subject matter they encompass. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, July 2, 1970* [Affirmed.] Victor R. Beckman, attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, for the Commissioner of Patents, Jere W. Sears, of counsel. [Oral argument February 6, 1970 by Mr. Sears; appellant submits on brief] Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Associate Judges. and FORD, Judge, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the examiner's rejection of claims 4-55 and 58–70, all the remaining claims in appellant's application.1 The appeal was heard, and is being decided, concurrently with Appeal No. 8278, which involves another application of appellant directed to related subject matter.2 The present application is directed to the determination of position and velocity of moving objects such as missiles and navigating vehicles. These determinations require numerous measurements based *Petition for rehearing denied September 10, 1970. 1 Serial No. 278,191, filed May 6, 1963, for "Doppler System For Detecting and Tracking Moving Objects, Determining the Characteristics of Their Motions and Similar Applications." 2 Serial No. 86,770, filed Feb. 2, 1961. Although the application is long and complex, the claims extremely numerous, and appellant charges that many of the alleged errors by the board are grounded on its "lack of understanding of the technical aspects" of the "invention" and the "associated art," appellant chose not to be represented at the oral hearing where he or his representative would have been in a position to answer questions which could have been most helpful to the court. on the well-known doppler effect, which may be broadly described as the phenomenon whereby relative movement between a source of emanations or reflections of a wave train (such as an electromagnetic wave, light wave or sound wave) and a receiver results in an effective change in the wave frequency proportional to the relative velocity between the source and receiver. Appellant's disclosure includes a general description of a number of different systems. In one system, the position of a reflective missile is determined by using three stations in known locations, each station being capable of transmitting continuous radio frequency waves and receiving such waves when reflected back from the target missile. Each station employs a different frequency and measures the net change of phase (indicative of doppler frequency change) of the received signal with respect to the transmitted signal which occurs in a finite time interval. This measured change of phase is proportional to the corresponding change of range of the missile from the station. From the known data regarding the locations of the stations, the measured data from the plurality of stations, and additional relationships or restraints assumed as to the characteristics of the target motion, appellant establishes equations which he states may be solved through the use of a digital computer to determine the position and velocity of the target. In an alternative to the aforementioned system using the same number of stations, appellant obtains, through measurements based on doppler effect, electrical signals which are representative of the radial velocity of the target relative to the various stations, and, if desired, additional signals representative of the first, second or higher mathematical time derivatives of such velocity. Through use of these signals and additional information based on assumed restraints on the motion of the moving target, appellant establishes a sufficient number of equations to permit solution for target position and velocity. Appellant's application also makes reference to a multiplicity of other modifications, some of which are described only in very general terms. Among these modifications is a system which uses three stationary transmitters in conjunction with a single stationary receiver that intercepts waves from the transmitters that are reflected from the moving target and a system for simultaneously determining the positions of a plurality of moving targets. Still other systems involve the use of a single transmitter and receiver with one or the other disposed in The application suggests such restraints as considering the target's motion to be confined to a plane or to be in a known path such as a straight line or an ellipse. the target or both outside the target. It appears from the application that the latter arrangements require that specialized restraints be assumed as to the nature of the path of the target and that, in at least certain cases, the system is limited to determinations of position in a a single plane. Neither appellant nor the Patent Office tribunals have designated any claim or group of claims as truly representative of the total of sixty-five claims on appeal as to all issues raised. However, the issues which we find dispositive of the appeal will be sufficiently clear from consideration of the following claims: 23. A method of determining in three dimensions the present position and the positions of points along the path of a moving object comprising the following steps: (1) Simultaneously performing three separate measurements, during each of a number of overlapping or contiguous intervals of time, changes in the magnitudes of geometrical properties of the geometrical configuration formed by straight lines connecting each of a number of fixed points to the moving object, which geometrical properties may be the lengths of said straight lines, the sums of the lengths of two such lines, or the difference between the lengths of two such lines, (2) Calculating the lengths of said lines between the moving object and each of said known points using only one set of the three simultaneous sets of measurements for each calculation, and computing the present position and positions along the path of the moving object corresponding to the one set of measured data to any desired computational accuracy, without regard to statistical compromises, which computing is based in part on the knowledge that the path of the moving object is continuous in space and not repetitive over the interval of the sequence of measurements, (3) Computing the significant positions along the path of the moving object, by trilateration using the data derived separately from each of the three sets of data. 33. A method of determining the position of a moving object travelling in a ballistic trajectory comprising the following steps: (1) Establishing on the Earth's surface at separate known positions a transmitter and a receiver of radio waves, (2) Measuring repeatedly the change in the total distance from the said transmitter to the moving object to the said receiver by observations of the doppler phenomenon, (3) Computing the position of the moving object from the data measured in Step (2). 37. A method of determining the position of a moving object at a number of places along its path comprising the following steps: (1) Measuring simultaneously and repeatedly the algebraic sums of the changes of range from the moving object to a first reference point and the range from the moving object to each of two other reference points, all of which reference points are known and may be free, (2) Determining by timing means the times of occurrence of the initiation and termination of each measurement, |