Appeal No. 94-3474
Application 07/956,126
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We agree with appellant that, in
view of the prior art, if UV radiation and free-radical catalysts
are used, they would have been explicitly set forth in the
disclosure, most notably, the examples. The prior art (e.g.,
Döscher) as well as appellant’s disclosure sets forth three means
by which free-radicals are generated: catalysts, UV radiation and
heat. We find that within the context of appellant’s disclosure
that one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
and understood that the free-radicals of the claimed process are
being generated by a thermal means without ultraviolet radiation
and without the addition of a free-radical generator-type
catalyst compound. Appellant recites the temperature of his
claimed process as being between 120E and 240EC. Döscher teaches
that thermal generation of free-radicals occurs at temperatures
greater than 180EC. This teaching is sufficient to establish
that the temperature of appellant’s claimed process will be
sufficient to generate free-radicals. There is no evidence of
record to establish that temperatures between 120E and 180EC.
would not also produce free-radicals in accordance with the
claimed process.
For the reasons given above, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007