Appeal No. 2001-1133 4 Application No. 09/014,806 relate specifically to CH3F. See Answer, page 4. Furthermore, the only examples found in the specification are likewise directed to CH3F. Id. When the disclosure is coupled with appellants statement that as the, “mechanism for nitride: oxide selectivity in their chemistry is not well understood,” it follows that the invention as claimed is not enabled. Id. We disagree. As we stated above, the burden of proof of finding that the invention is not enabled rests with the Office. The specification provides specific volume ratios for CH3F, diatomic oxygen and carbon dioxide. See specification, pages 4 and 5. In addition, the specification as originally filed, provides for an etchant gas comprising a hydrogen rich fluorohydrocarbon, an oxidant and a carbon source. See original claim1. Furthermore, original claim 4 specifically provides for a fluorohydrocarbon gas present at approximately 7% - 35% by volume. Based upon these findings, we conclude that appellants specifically intended that the volume of fluorohydrocarbon gas apply to all fluorohydrocarbons and not just the CH3F as argued by the examiner. Accordingly, we cannot agree with the examiner’s conclusion that the ratios apply only to the sole aforesaid fluorohydrocarbon, CH3F. Furthermore, the argument presented in the Answer, pages 4 and 5, based upon the statement that since the, “mechanism for nitride: oxide selectivity in their chemistry is not well understood,” it would not apply to other fluorohydrocarbons, is speculative in nature and insufficient to support a rejection on the grounds of lack of enablement. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection under § 112.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007