Appeal No. 95-3615
Application No. 08/003,401
for removing residual monomer from an aqueous latex, wherein
the aqueous latex comprises polyvinyl chloride, a vinyl
chloride copolymer, a rubber polymer or well-known functional
equivalents of these polymers. The claims are not enabled for
any other synthetic polymer latex. Further clarification is
required. See MPEP
§ 706.03(n) and 706.03(z)" (Answer, pages 2-3).
We cannot sustain this rejection.
We share the appellant’s basic position that on the
record of this appeal the examiner has failed to carry his
burden of establishing a prima facie case that the disclosure
of this application would not enable one with ordinary skill
in the art to practice the here claimed invention without
undue experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229,
1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982). In this regard, we
reiterate the appellant’s point that many of the examiner’s
proffered reasons for doubting enablement are based upon
speculation, some of which are patently erroneous, rather than
evidence.
As for the examiner’s concern that experimentation would
be required to practice the process defined by the appealed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007