Appeal No. 1997-2099
Application No. 08/233,468
not met the initial burden of proof by failing to provide reasons why one of ordinary
skill in the art would not consider the description sufficient to reasonably convey that
Appellant was in possession of the subject matter in question. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d
1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The Examiner has rejected claims 17-19 because he finds that the original
specification does not support the “working fluid has a specific vapor pressure in a
specific temperature range.” (Answer, pg 7). The Examiner has rejected claim 20
because he finds that the original specification does not support the “working fluid is
o o
capable of withstanding a temperature within the range of about 480 F to about 500 F in
the high temperature loop.” (Answer, pg 8). The Examiner notes the limitations of
these claims appear on page 3 of the specification as description of the prior art. To
fulfill the written description requirement, the specification must clearly allow a person
having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor has invented what is
claimed. In the present case, the specification discloses the problems associated with
prior art absorber compositions and their use in high-temperature circuit of a dual loop
absorption refrigeration system. (See
specification, pages. 2-4). Appellant asserts on pages 8 and 9 of the principal brief, the
specification discloses his composition solves the problems of the prior art and is
suitable for use within the high-temperature circuit of a dual loop absorption
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007