Appeal No. 1998-2876
Application No. 08/592,930
reasoning inconsistent with enablement. In re Strahilevitz,
668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982). On the
other hand, the appellants have set forth in their brief a
number of reasons which support a conclusion that the subject
specification disclosure would enable one with ordinary skill
in the art to practice the here claimed invention.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the section
112, first paragraph, rejection of appealed claims 1-24.
Concerning the prior art rejections, it appears to be the
examiner’s position that each of the primary references to
Tsumura and Kishimoto discloses a transistor comprising a film
of organic semiconductor material which inherently possesses
“uniaxially aligned molecules” as required by all of the
appealed claims. However, these references do not disclose
that the film of organic semiconductor material described
therein possesses uniaxially aligned molecules nor do they
disclose an orientation film of the type claimed and disclosed
by the appellants which would necessarily produce a film of
organic semiconductor material with uniaxially aligned
molecules. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the
examiner’s inherency position is not supported by any evidence
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007