Appeal No. 1996-2336
Application 08/270,345
have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the
claimed method without undue experimentation. In appellant’s
examples the components of the mixture are combined and then
emulsified. There is no indication that the cyclicsiloxanes
are mechanically pre-emulsified prior to being combined with
any of the other components. The examiner has not explained,
and it is not apparent, why these examples, together with the
other disclosure in the specification, would not have enabled
one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed
methods without undue experimentation.
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In
re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA
1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96
(CCPA 1976).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007