Appeal No. 95-1872
Application 07/953,340
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495-496, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444-1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We find that the
disclosure of the name and address of the manufacturer of the sponge material as well as at least one
specific part number used by applicant in practicing the invention would have been sufficient information
for a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation.
Appellant also has made of record in the application the Won (I) patent to show that micro sponge
technology was well known in the art as of the filing date of this application. Contrary to the position taken
by the examiner, applicant may offer evidence, such as a single patent, which is not discussed in the
specification to show knowledge possessed by those skilled in the art to establish that the specification is
enabling. In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370, 178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973). For the foregoing
reasons as well as those set forth in appellant’s Brief, the examiner’s rejection under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Stangroom. The patent discloses an electroviscous fluid, a fluid which according to the patentee is “capable
of exhibiting an increase in apparent viscosity under the influence of an electric field” (p. 1, lines 8-17).
Thus, it appears that Stangroom’s fluid would be an electro-rheological fluid in accordance with appellant’s
definition set forth, supra. Stangroom’s electroviscous fluid comprises “water-containing particles of a
polymer having free or neutralized acid groups” dispersed in an electrically non-conducting oleaginous
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007