Appeal No. 95-3734
Application No. 08/043,620
statement in the supporting disclosure or back up assertions of
his own with acceptable evidence or reasoning inconsistent with
the contested statement. In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d at 677-78,
185 USPQ at 153.
We have carefully reviewed the specification, which contains
an exhaustive disclosure pertaining to the claimed
interpenetrating polymer network. The specification discloses,
inter alia, the monomeric precursors, including crosslinking
precursors, and the amounts of those precursors required to make
the claimed products. The specification further discloses the
process and process conditions necessary for preparing the
claimed interpenetrating polymer network, the physical properties
possessed by the claimed interpenetrating polymer network, and
applications of the claimed interpenetrating polymer network, for
example, photoresist applications. Finally, the specification
includes thirteen working examples. All in all, we have no doubt
that the specification imparts sufficient information and
guidelines enabling any person skilled in the art to make and use
the claimed invention throughout its scope. We therefore reverse
the non-prior art rejection, to the extent that it is predicated
on 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Where, as here, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007