Appeal No. 1996-0672
Application No. 08/164,774
dopants useful for inducing desirable properties in existing
liquid crystals and would have been “immediately able to use
these compounds in the laboratory.” The Naciri declaration is
also supported by corroborating literature articles attached
thereto. While ignoring the factual basis supporting Dr.
Naciri’s opinions, the examiner simply and improperly
dismissed the Naciri declaration as an opinion which “does not
add anything new to the original disclosure in the parent
application.” See the answer at page 4. Particularly based
on the Naciri declaration and the supporting literature of
record, we agree with appellants that the originally filed
parent application complies with the “how to use” requirement
of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Thus we find that
appellants are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of
their parent application. Accordingly, we also find that the
applied Yamazaki reference is not available as prior art
against the appealed claims. Therefore, the examiner’s stated
art rejections based on Yamazaki are not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007