Appeal No. 95-4065
Application No. 07/872,185
3, column 10). Therefore Yundt does not provide any evidence
to support the examiner’s reasoning for doubting the
assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.
Furthermore, the examiner has only questioned the enabling
disclosure for the formulas recited on page 2, paragraph 15,
of Paper No. 16, and the scope of appealed claim 22 is not
limited to these siloxane chains.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has failed to meet the initial burden of establishing a lack
of enabling disclosure. Therefore we need not discuss the
sufficiency of the two Ogawa Declarations under 37 CFR § 1.132
submitted by appellants. See In re Wright, supra.
Accordingly, insofar as the examiner’s rejection under the
first paragraph of § 112 is based on the enablement
requirement, the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9 and 22 is
reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007