Appeal No. 1998-0240
Application 08/522,479
As to the language “between about 0.005% and 2.0%,” the examiner has failed to meet the
burden that one skilled in the art would be unable to ascertain its scope. Here, the specific language
“between about 0.005% and 2.0%” is clear, but flexible. The language allows appellant to include both
the end points within the scope of the claim and also some finite amount beyond the end points.
As to the language “effective to increase the level of crimp within said fiber,” the examiner
argues that the degree of “increase in the level of crimp is not defined by the claim.”
The prior art reference Pike, however, describes a specific industry standardized test to measure the
crimp of the fiber. (Pike, col. 11, lines 32-33; “crimp was measured according to ASTM D-3937-
82.”). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would be able to ascertain the amount of crimping in a fiber
that does not contain a nucleating agent and compare it to the level of crimping in a fiber containing a
nucleating agent in order to determine if the amount of crimping was “increased.”
2. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as the
disclosure is only enabled for claims limited in accordance with the specification at page 5, line 12.
More particularly, the examiner states that:
However, according to page 5 supra the fast solidifying component polymer has a melting point
about 10 C or higher. Thus, claim 9 ‘higher melting point’ is broader in scope than the enablingo
disclosure. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007