Appeal No. 1997-1218
Application No. 08/268,687
with the addition of a liquid, and then drying to
get the milled glass fibers.
No prior art references have been relied upon by the
examiner, and no prior art rejections are before us. Instead,
the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as well as under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
We do not sustain the stated rejections of the appealed
claims.
Although the examiner indicates in his answer at page 2
that the stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, "has little to do with enablement", at page 3 of
his answer, the examiner explains that there does not appear
to be a "written description of the claim limitation of how to
grind fibers with a
mixer to produce milled fibers, in the application as filed."
(emphasis added). Thus, it appears that the examiner's real
concern is with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, not the written description requirement.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007