Appeal No. 95-2788
Application 08/038,430
Claims 21 through 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, as being based on a nonenabling disclosure.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note, in passing, that the recitation
on line 20 of claim 26, of "less than 350x10 ...," was probably10
meant to read --less than 350x10 ...--. We leave it to-10
appellants and the examiner to make the necessary corrections.
In the final rejection of May 12, 1994 (Paper No. 11),
the examiner holds the disclosure to be nonenabling for the
claimed lower limit for the wear factor because
In the absence of a lower limit, the
wear factor includes values approaching
zero. Accordingly, the specification is
non-enabling as to a wear factor as
small as that encompassed by the
-10 3
limitation "less than 10x10 in -
min/ft-lb-hr" [FR-page 2].
The examiner also states, at page 3 of the final
rejection,
...the specification does not disclose
an upper limit for the amount of PTFE
(at least 15%) or carbon fiber (at least
30%) comprising the data storage
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007