Appeal No. 1997-0005
Application 08/340,966
polymer solution” does not have support in the originally
filed specification, because “Samples C, D and E” in the Table
on page 8 of the specification do not expressly describe the
percentage of hydrogenation that has been effected at the time
this additional amount of nickel hydrogenation catalyst is
added to the hydrogenated polymer solution. As appellants
emphasize in their brief, Samples C, D and E are originally
described as “examples of the present invention”
(specification, page 8, lines 25-27), and based on the
original claims, the abstract, and the descriptions in the
specification at page 3, lines 4-6, and page 5, lines 20-23,
the “present invention” referred to at page 8, lines 26 and
27, of the specification is necessarily a process wherein the
hydrogenation exceeds 90 percent of the ethylenic unsaturation
when additional catalyst is added. Based on the factual
record before us, we conclude that the application, as
originally filed, reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary
skill in this art that appellants had possession of the later
claimed subject matter defined by appealed claim 7. Thus,
this rejection is also reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007