Appeal No. 1997-0359
Application No. 08/173,485
a person of such skill to make and use Appellants’ invention
without undue experimentation. The threshold step in
resolving this issue is to determine whether the Examiner has
met his burden of proof by advancing acceptable reasoning
consistent with enablement requirement.
The Examiner contends [answer, pages 3 through 4] that
“[t]he ordinary artisan knows that ‘supersaturation’ refers to
the amounts of a compound or substance dissolved in a solvent
being greater than the equilibrium amount at the subject
temperature, e.g. This is wholly distinct from an OH ion -
concentration, or solution that is somehow electrically
unbalanced, in the real world. As to this, the specification
fails to have an adequate description and enablement of this
essential part of the invention.” (Emphasis in original.)
The Examiner further asserts [answer, page 6] that “[i]t is
not clear how supersaturation in OH ion relates to ordinary-
chemical technology. Therefore, Appellant’s [sic] reference
to an ordinary collegiate dictionary cannot satisfy a
technical, chemical technology question.” We agree with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007