Appeal No. 1996-0672
Application No. 08/164,774
filing date of the presently claimed invention is the filing
date of this continuation-in-part application ,i.e., December
10, 1993, and , therefore, the examiner argues that the 1992
Yamazaki reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b). Thus, the dispositive issue generated by the
examiner’s rejections in this appeal is whether or not the
originally filed parent application complies with the “how to
use” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Essentially for the reasons and arguments set forth in
appellants’ brief and the evidence in support of appellants’
arguments, we answer this question in the affirmative. We add
the following brief comments for emphasis only.
The examiner contends that appellants’ statement in the
last full paragraph of page 1 of the specification that the
claimed optically active compounds are “useful” as a “raw
material” for ferroelectric liquid crystals is not a
disclosure of “specific definite utility within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 101" and is thus an inadequate teaching of “how to
use the claimed invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.” See the answer at page 3.
In response to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007