Appeal No. 95-0227
Application No. 08/061,406
We reverse each of the aforementioned rejections essentially
for the reasons advanced by appellants in their brief, reply
brief and supplemental reply brief. We add the following
comments for emphasis.
I.
The examiner’s case for nonenablement is based on an
assertion that determination of whether a synthetic resin powder,
other than one specifically disclosed by appellants, is suitable
for inclusion in the claimed composition would involve undue
experimentation. Thus, according to the examiner, the involved
specification is enabling only for the particular resin powders
exemplified in the disclosure on page 4, lines 6-12. We
disagree.
As indicated by appellants, the examiner has failed to
establish that undue experimentation would be involved in
choosing a particular resin powder capable of producing a clay-
like composition having a Williams Plasticity value within the
claimed range, especially in view of the fact that the instant
specification includes a number of specific examples of suitable
resin powders. A broad assertion of a need for undue
experimentation, unsupported by factual evidence and/or cogent
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007