Appeal No. 96-0114
Application No. 08/128,279
appellant’s statements in the specification. Id. Mere
conclusory remarks by the examiner regarding a propellant gas
are not sufficient to satisfy his or her burden. Note that
there is nothing inconsistent about feeding a propellant gas
("a liquefied gas with a vapor pressure greater than
atmospheric pressure at 105 deg. F") under adequate pressure
to permit its introduction into an extruder containing a
viscous liquid starch composition and causing the conversion
of a propellant gas (liquid form) to a gaseous form in an
extruder due to temperature and pressure conditions therein.
See Brief, page 7. The very reference the examiner relied
upon to justify his
§ 112 rejection also supports appellant’s conclusion that one
of ordinary skill in the art would know how to select
"suitable propellants" for making cushioning particles without
undue experimentation. The examiner’s doubt as to why the
specification is inadequate is simply unsupported by any
evidence. Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 224, 169 USPQ at 370.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007