Appeal No. 95-2896 Page 4
Application No. 07/977,771
Washington, DC Sept. 23-27, 1990, 1991 MRS Int. Conf. Proc.,
Editors: Messier et al., pages 943-947.
Claims 1- 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure and as
lacking an adequate written description in the specification.
OPINION
Having considered the entire record of this application,
including the arguments advanced by both the examiner and
appellant in support of their respective positions, we agree
with appellant that the examiner has not met his burden to
show that the claimed subject matter is not described and
supported by the original disclosure of the application.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the appellant's brief.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Rejection for Lack of Descriptive Support
The examiner has rejected claims 1-11 and objected to the
specification "... as failing to provide an adequate written
description of the invention...” (answer, page 3). See Vas-
Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007