Appeal No. 97-0598
Application 08/322,670
speculation set forth on page 2 in the first Office
action of July 10, 1995 that “there could be tunneling of
current which would effectively short all pins together
and there alone make the device inoperative.” Obviously,
the Examiner’s latter quoted speculation questions the
operability or utility of the described invention rather
than the sufficiency of its disclosure which includes the
presumptively accurate description on pages 4-6 of the
specification relating to [the] details of a
manufacturing procedure utilized to achieve the specified
dimensional limitations ... to which claims 7, 8 and 16
are limited. [Brief, page 4.]
To support his position on non-enablement, the Examiner
states that “[r]eferences Galaj ‘592 and Suzuki ‘278 disclose
sintered alumina with micropores, however ... it is not
evident from ... these references or from appellant’s [sic]
disclosure how to enable a charge transfer structure ... with
parallel or ‘spaced’ pores of 20-200 nanometers in diameter.”
[Answer, unnumbered page preceding page 3].
Appellants, in their reply brief, page 2, argue that
neither the first Office action nor the final rejection even
mentions such cited references, and, accordingly, no use of
the now-cited references be made for support of the rejection.
We agree with Appellants. To admit these references as
evidence in the record without giving Appellants an
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007