Appeal No. 1999-0461
Application No. 08/815,682
re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA
1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96
(CCPA 1976).
The examiner argues that the specification does not
provide adequate written descriptive support for the term
“maintaining” in claim 1 (answer, page 5).
As stated above regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, the maintaining at 200ēC or below in claim 1 reasonably
appears to be the vitrifying at 200ēC or below described in
the specification (page 3). This maintaining or vitrifying
necessarily must last for some time period. Hence, the
specification would have conveyed with reasonable clarity to
those skilled in the art that the appellant was in possession
of a method in which metal oxide micro-spherules are
maintained at 200ēC or below. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, enablement and written description
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007