Appeal No. 1999-0787
Application No. 08/813,953
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 6).
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 be maintained for the time period required for
the metal oxide film to be produced. Moreover, the specification
discloses examples wherein the reaction product is heated
at 120ēC for 30 minutes (page 12), 180-200ēC for 20 minutes
(page 12), and 120-150ēC for 20-30 minutes (page 14) to produce
metal oxide films. Hence, the specification would have conveyed
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the
inventor was in possession of a method in which the reaction
product is maintained at 200ēC or below to obtain a metal oxide
film. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007