Appeal No. 94-3474
Application 07/956,126
The examiner determined that the expression “without
ultraviolet radiation” is not “supported by the specification
simply by the absence of a requirement to include UV radiation in
that even the presence of daylight would include UV radiation”
(Answer, page 4). As for the expression “without the addition of
free-radical generators,” the examiner determined that the
specification does not support the expression because if
appellant’s claimed process is a free-radical reaction, the
process “must include a free-radical generator of some kind in
order to function” (Answer, page 4). The examiner concluded that
both expressions “introduce new concepts and violate the
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112"
(Answer, page 4).
Appellant admits that his “specification makes absolutely no
reference whatsoever to the use of ultraviolet irradiation or
free-radical generators” in his free-radical process (Brief, page
4). Appellant argues, however, that if one skilled in the art at
the time the application was filed intended to use ultraviolet
irradiation or a free-radical generator, such a person would have
said so. Appellant considers the concept of conducting his free-
radical chlorination or bromination process in the absence of
ultraviolet irradiation and without the addition of free-radical
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007