Appeal No. 1997-3655
Application No. 08/351,136
polymer having certain properties including a particular melt
flow rate range and, for a boiled heptane-insoluble component,
certain ranges of pentad isotacticity, pentad tacticity and
crystallinity. Further details of this appealed subject
matter are set forth in illustrative independent claim 52, a
copy of which taken from the appellants’ brief is appended to
this decision.
No prior art has been relied upon by the examiner in the
sole rejection before us on this appeal.
All of the appealed claims are rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for being based upon a disclosure
which would not enable one skilled in the art to practice the
here claimed invention. More specifically, it is the
examiner’s fundamental position that the scope of enablement
provided by the appellants’ disclosure is inadequate relative
to the scope of these rejected claims. As characterized by
the examiner, these claims are rejected because “they
encompass to an undue extent polymers for which the
specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make”
(answer, page 6).
We refer to the various briefs and answers for a complete
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007