Appeal No. 95-3233
Application No. 08/094,477
feed wherein the flow rate of the precursor/propylene has a
Reynolds number greater than about 20,000.
Appellants submit at page 2 of their third Reply Brief,
dated April 4, 1996, that "[t]he claims stand or fall
together."
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based upon a non-enabling
disclosure. We will not sustain this rejection.2
It is well settled that the examiner bears the initial
burden of establishing lack of enablement under § 112, first
paragraph, by compelling reasoning or objective evidence. In
re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA
1982); In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369
(CCPA 1971). Here, although the examiner correctly states
that the Reynolds number is a function of four variables, the
2The § 112, first paragraph, rejection was set forth in
the original Examiner's Answer of February 3, 1995. The
second Supplemental Examiner's Answer of February 8, 1996,
appears to be an entirely new statement of rejections of the
appealed claims, and no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is set forth. However, inasmuch as the § 112
rejection has not been expressly withdrawn in either the
Supplemental Examiner's Answer of May 4, 1995 or the second
Supplemental Examiner's Answer of February 8, 1996, we will
consider the rejection as an issue presently on appeal.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007