Interference No. 101,981
e) no disclosure of cool down factors, especially with respect to
resulting grain size. In each instance, Qadri is requiring
enablement of a product with a minimal amount of impurity,
something the claims do not require.
Qadri (QB 78) also argues that Beyers’ application fails to
enable the invention because it misdescribes the calcining step.
According to Qadri (QB 79), for example, “[o]nly about one half
of the disclosed preferred temperature range is recognized by the
art as useful for calcining in the production [sic] a single
phase compound.” Beyers teaches a preferable range of 900-1000
degrees C. (Beyers’ application, p. 2, lines 17-18). Qadri (QB
78) argues that only 900-950 degrees C is an acceptable range.
The difference is 50 degrees at the high end but, even if Qadri
is correct, this does not demonstrate the necessity for undue
experimentation in selecting those temperatures that produce the
claimed composition. That the range is only 100 degrees and
Beyers’ temperatures covers half of it suggests otherwise. Qadri
has not shown that the Beyers’ specification would entail undue
experimentation in making the claimed composition and therefore
Qadri has not sustained their burden of establishing
unpatentability of Beyers’ claims on these grounds.
68
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007