Appeal No. 1996-4058
Application No. 07/837,619
Rejection, page 2, and lack of “enough data to support the
claimed invention,” Final Rejection, page 3, line 1.
With respect to the examiner’s first contention, it has
long been settled that the examiner must provide “reasons why
a description not in ipsis verbis is insufficient.” Wertheim,
541 F.2d at 265, 191 USPQ at 98. Accordingly, the examiner’s
finding that the term “said alloy being resistant to
oxidation at 1550EC” is not per se found in the specification”
is insufficient to support the rejection. Moreover, we find
basis for the terminology in the specification at page 1,
lines 6-9, Example 1, and page 12, lines 1-4. The
specification at page 1 states that “[the] invention relates
to materials which melt only at very high temperatures and,
more specifically, to alloys which melt only at high
temperatures and exhibit improved resistance to oxidation at
such temperatures.” Similarly at page 12 of the
specification, it is concluded that “[a]s can be seen in the
foregoing examples, the alloys of this invention are
structurally stable at high temperatures and exhibit
remarkably good resistance to harshly oxidizing environments.”
The aforesaid statement refers to each of the examples wherein
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007