Appeal No. 2000-0210 Page 10
Application No. 08/893,906
Furthermore, it is our view that it would not require
undue experimentation to practice the invention as set forth
in claim 9 under appeal. In that regard, we agree with the
appellants that a person skilled in the art would know to mix
the anti-adhesive additive with the claimed hard plastic
material before the backing ring is molded. In addition, it
is our opinion that in this art the selection of a suitable
material for use as the anti-adhesive additive to be added to
hard plastic material before the backing ring is molded does
not require undue experimentation. Thus, we conclude that one
skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention
from the disclosure without undue experimentation.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007