Appeal No. 96-3717
Application 08/229,115
temperature ... varies depending on the animal species” (specification: pp. 4-5). We find that this
disclosure would be sufficient for a person having ordinary skill in the biological sciences to ascertain a
temperature range. The body temperatures for humans as well as for non-human mammals can be readily
obtained by those skilled in the art from standard reference texts in the biology, zoology and animal
sciences. On the record before us, the examiner has not presented a analysis based on scientific and
technical reasoning as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art could not have ascertained the scope
of the claimed subject matter based on appellants’ disclosure. For these reasons, the rejection of claims
12-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
The examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 16-22 and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over either Solomon or Lambert. Both
references disclose a medical tube comprising polyurethane. In particular, Solomon discloses a catheter
made of a polyurethane 80 A or polyurethane 55 D (col. 4, lines 14-34). Solomon does not disclose the
components which make up polyurethane 80 A and 55 D, but the examiner made a finding that “[i]t is well
known that polyurethane is the product of three main parts: an isocyanate component, a chain extender and
a polyol component” (answer: p. 5). Appellants’ have not challenged this factual finding. Therefore, we
accept it as fact. In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1406-1407, 176 USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973); In re
Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 727-728, 169 USPQ 231, 234 (CCPA 1971); In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091-
1092, 165 USPQ 418, 421-422 (CCPA 1970).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007