Appeal No. 1996-0716
Application 08/107,661
publication is not an incorporation of anything therein
into the application containing such reference for the
purposes of the disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. 112.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the entirety of Ludvik's was
"incorporated" in appellants' disclosure, we adhere to our
conclusion expressed on pages 6 and 7 of our decision that
because we are not privy to the entire record of the
prosecution of Ludvik's patent, we will not engage in
speculating in what might have been done "on a different
record in another application."
We also note that at page 7 of our decision, we observed
that:
unless appellants' reference in their disclosure is a
reference to a group of "pesticides and herbicides" well-
known in the art at the time appellants' application was
filed and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have known at the time appellants filed their application
how to prepare said well-known "pesticides and
herbicides" using appellants' compounds as starting
materials, we find the disclosure to be inadequate to
satisfy the statutory requirements of both 35 U.S.C.
§§101 and 112, first paragraph.
Appellants have failed to direct our attention both in their
brief and in their request for rehearing to any evidence which
supports appellants' position implicit in their argument. That
is, appellants have provided no evidence establishing that the
hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007