Appeal No. 1999-0810
Application No. 08/463,883
sintering method. However, as expressly noted by the
appellant (e.g., see page 6 of the reply brief), an original
disclosure on page 5 of the specification teaches “[t]he
process is effective because the perovskite structure is a
strong absorber of microwave energy so rapid heating occurs
once the conversion begins.” This teaching in combination
with the specification disclosure concerning microwave
sintering of LaMnO -family ceramics specifically support the
3
appellant’s presumptively valid position that one having an
ordinary level of skill in this art would be able to practice
the here claimed sintering process for preparing a perovskite
ceramic generically. On the other hand, the examiner has
advanced no acceptable reasoning in support of his burden to
show that the subject specification would not enable the
ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the here claimed
process. Indeed, the examiner has not given a single
technical reason for believing that an attempt to practice
this process would involve undue experimentation.
Under these circumstances, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 112, first paragraph, rejection of appealed
claim 23 as being nonenabled.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007