Appeal No. 95-2876
Application 07/906,403
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants question
the propriety of the examiner's refusal to enter an amendment
after final rejection. We need to emphasize that appellants'
remedy is through a petition to the Commissioner, not through
an appeal to the Board. In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403,
169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
2. § 112, First Paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 20 through 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. According to the examiner at
page 4 of the Answer, the specification lacks the best mode of
forming a particular microspherical product. The examiner,
however, has not established that, at the time the application
was filed, inventors knew of a mode of forming this
microspherical product that they considered to be better than
any other. Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Industries, 913 F.2d 923,
926, 16 USPQ2d 1033, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since the
examiner has not proffered any evidence of concealment
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007