Appeal No. 1996-1072
Application 08/132,289
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement requirement if it allows those of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. See In re Wright,
999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27
USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I.
du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409,
413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner argues that appellants’ invention is limited
to compatible volatiles, that “suitable” in claim 1 does not
describe the invention sufficiently to have permitted one of
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention,
and that concentrations of inerts and actives vary, with
decreasing actives requiring additional inerts (answer, pages
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007