Interference No. 101,981
We have reviewed the evidence but Qadri has not sustained
their burden and therefore we find no error in the APJ’s denial.
With respect to “slow cooling”, Qadri deems it critical to
producing the material. Batlogg (BaB 51-52) appears to agree
that they do not teach slow cooling but state that “[t]here is no
need to ‘affirmatively control the temperature drop’.” There is
therefore a dispute as to whether slow cooling is required to
enable Batlogg’s claim 16. The only reason we can find for
affirmatively slow cooling is to guarantee that the composition
is composed of purely A1B2Cu307. However, Batlogg’s claim 16 does
not require it. Therefore, the lack of a teaching of “slow
cooling” is not a persuasive reason for finding that Batlogg has
failed to comply with the enablement requirement. Since Qadri
has not shown that Batlogg’s claim 16 lacks an enabling
disclosure on these grounds, and since we are asked to review the
Preliminary Motion only on these original grounds, we affirm the
APJ’s denial of that motion.
In their brief, Qadri (QB 66-74) presents additional grounds
for finding a lack of enablement. They argue that Batlogg fails
to provide an enabling disclosure due to deficiencies in
Batlogg’s specification that include disclosures of imprecise
59
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007