Appeal No. 1998-2265
Application No. 08/498,482
“recrystallization heat treating step,” as the examiner would
have us believe. Quite oppositely, appealed claim 6 is
commensurate with the scope of enablement because it covers
only those conditions which provide a “grain size of at most
10 Fm.” Cf. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d
1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Properly construed, claim 1 is
amply supported by the written description because Example 1
discloses the amount of [hair restoring composition] to apply
(about one teaspoon daily) and the amount of time (about one
month) in which to expect results.”).
For these reasons, we cannot uphold the examiner’s
rejection of appealed claims 2, 6, and 8 through 11 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to satisfy the
enablement requirement of the statute.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007