Appeal No. 2001-1527
Application No. 08/753,265
support of the routine optimization theory, the examiner asserts
that the specified temperature and pressure ranges (recited in
claim 19) are well known for molding polyester sheets. (Id.)
Rejection 3
The examiner argues that both Bullock and Medwed teach
processes meeting all the limitations recited in claims 17–19 but
for the temperature ranges (claim 17) and the range of pressures
(claim 19.) (Answer at 13–14.) As in Rejection 2, the examiner
asserts that the selection of such temperatures and pressures
would have been a matter of routine optimization. (Id.)
Appellants’ argument
The Appellants’ traverse of the examiner’s rejections is set
out in full in their Brief.
B. Discussion
Rejection 1
Whether the specification provides an adequate written
description of the subject matter claimed is a question of fact:
“one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must
immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.”
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56
USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). With
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007