Appeal No. 1999-0810
Application No. 08/463,883
while the originally filed specification discussed
LaMnO family ceramics throughout the specification
3
and provides the method of sintering LaMnO family
3
ceramics, it contains absolutely no statement of
[sic, or] inference with regard to non-LaMnO family
3
ceramics [and that] [t]his clearly reflects that the
appellant did not contemplate extending his
sintering method to non-LaMnO family ceramics at the
3
time the present invention was made and filed.
As indicated earlier, however, the examiner’s burden in a
written description rejection is not carried simply by urging
a lack of literal support for the claimed subject matter.
Further, we question the accuracy of the examiner’s above
quoted assertion that the appellant’s specification “contains
absolutely no statement of [sic, or] inference with regard to
non-LaMnO family ceramics.” In this regard, we reiterate the
3
observation that specification page 5, in discussing the
appellant’s microwave sintering method, discloses that “[t]he
process is effective because the perovskite structure is a
strong absorber of microwave energy so rapid heating occurs
once the conversion begins.” It would seem reasonable to
consider that this disclosure would convey to the artisan that
the appellant had possession on the filing date of the now
claimed sintering process for preparing a perovskite ceramic
generically. Certainly, on the record of this appeal, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007