Appeal No. 98-0103 Page 5
Application No. 08/248,745
this issue is to determine whether the examiner has met his
burden of proof by advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent
with enablement. This the examiner has not done. While the
examiner has correctly pointed out that the appellant's
disclosure fails to specify the amounts of the absorbers and
polymers used in the absorptive material, it is our opinion that
this alone is not a sufficient basis, in this case, to meet his
burden of proof. This is especially true in view of the fact
that the prior art of record (e.g., U.S. Patents 4,948,922 and
5,389,434) establishes that absorptive materials of similar
composition were known as of the date of the appellant's
application. Thus, we conclude that appellant's disclosure would
have enabled a person of ordinary skill to make and use the
appellant's invention without undue experimentation.
The written description issue
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 16
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the
specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for
the invention as is now claimed, but we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 10 through 15 on this ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007