Appeal No. 97-0598
Application 08/322,670
specification is not enabling.
Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the Appellants’
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art
as of the date of Appellants’ application, would have enabled
a person of such skill to make and use the Appellants’
invention without undue experimentation. The threshold step
in resolving this issue as set forth supra is to determine
whether the Examiner has met his burden of proof by advancing
acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. This the
Examiner has not done.
We take the representative claim 16. The Examiner
objects to the specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as failing to provide an enabling disclosure, and
rejects all the pending claims based on this objection. The
Examiner contends that Appellants have not shown how to make a
sintered alumina structure with parallel or spaced metal
filled pores in the 20-200 nanometer range [answer, page 3 and
the unnumbered page precedGing it]. Appellants argue:
The only reason of record to doubt the objective truth of
such statements in the specification is the Examiner’s
time of filing the application.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007