Appeal No. 1997-3392
Application 08/297,946
burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled
in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description
of the invention defined by the claims.” Wertheim, 541 F.2d
at 263, 191 USPQ at 97.
The examiner argues that the specification does not
disclose a process which makes a pseudo core-shell polymer
having a gradient between its core and shell as recited in the
appellants’ claims (answer, pages 7-8 and 16-17).
The specification discloses that the pseudo core-shell
polymer has a gradual gradient of composition (page 4) and has
a less distinct boundary region between the core and shell
than does a core-shell polymer (page 16). This less distinct
boundary, i.e., gradient, is shown in the appellants’ figure
2. Thus, the specification reasonably conveys to one of
ordinary skill in the art that as of the filing date of the
application, the appellants were in possession of process
which makes a polymer having a morphology in which there is a
composition gradient between a core and a shell as recited in
the appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007