Appeal No. 98-1563 Page 16
Application No. 08/469,198
Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the appellants'
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art
as of the date of the 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. The mere fact that the appellants have
not disclosed the specific controls for achieving the claimed
heating rate and sintering reaction temperature does not, ipso
facto, make the disclosure nonenabling. In fact, we agree
with the appellants argument (brief, pp. 8-11) that claims 39
and 52 are enabled since a skilled artisan could have easily
provided and adjusted controls in a jet fluidized bed furnace
to provide the claimed temperature and heating rate.
Accordingly, claims 39 and 52 are considered to comply with
the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
The obviousness rejections
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007