Appeal No. 98-3269
Application No. 08/703,266
1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Marzocchi,
439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971). In the
present case, we concur with appellants that the examiner's
assertion of non-enablement is conclusory by virtue of not
specifically pointing to non-enabling aspects of the disclosed
and claimed invention. For example, whereas the examiner
points out that the specification examples employ only one
crosslinking agent, the specification discloses a variety of
free radical polymerizable crosslinking compounds in the
paragraph bridging pages 17 and 18. In our view, the examiner
has merely offered speculation that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have to resort to undue experimentation in order
to practice processes within the scope of the appealed claims.
In the absence of factual, evidentiary support, the examiner's
rejection cannot stand.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of
Georges and Wada. Georges discloses a free radical
polymerization process for preparing resins having a narrow
molecular weight distribution that does not employ the claimed
crosslinking compound in the reaction mixture. Wada, on the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007