Appeal No. 96-0311
Application No. 08/155,771
the artisan to make and use the claimed magnetic disk having
the recited maximum deflection values.
We will not sustain this rejection because the examiner
has the burden to establish a reasonable basis for challenging
the
sufficiency of the disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and, it is our view, the examiner has not
established such a reasonable basis.
Pages 8-11 of the specification and Table 1 at page 12
thereof disclose the necessary polishing and the properties of
the polishing pads, e.g., compressibility and moduli of
elasticity factors etc. which should be employed in order to
reach the intended result. It would appear that with the
relatively high level of skill in this art that the artisan
would have had no problem in following the examples set forth
in the specification. The examiner has pointed to nothing
specifically that would have made the disclosure nonenabling
for the skilled artisan. Therefore, since no reasonable basis
is set forth by the examiner for challenging the sufficiency
of the instant disclosure, we will not sustain the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007