Appeal No. 95-2683
Application No. 07/883,912
rejection under the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. However, the examiner has effectively
precluded any rejection under the enablement requirement of §
112, first paragraph, by dismissing the Corradini, Giannini I
and Giannini II declarations as "directed to the proposition
of enablement" (page 8 of Answer).
As for the examiner's position that the original
specification does not provide equivalent language for the
claim language "interpolymerizing ethylene with an alpha
olefin CHR=CH wherein R is a saturated aliphatic radical with
2
2 or more carbon atoms or a cycloaliphatic radical" and
"interpolymerizing ethylene with styrene C H CH=CH ," we find
6 5 2
that the passages in the specification cited by the examiner
provide descriptive support for the criticized claim language
within the meaning of § 112, first paragraph. For instance,
see page 10, lines 10-14 of the original specification.
We now turn to the examiner's rejections of claims 11-13
and 17 under § 102 over Vandenberg, claims 14-16 under § 103
over Vandenberg and claims 11-17 under § 103 over Anderson in
view of Vandenberg. Appellants state that the dispositive
issue for these rejections is whether parent application U.S.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007