Appeal No. 2003-0060
Application 09/236,718
and the appellants have not provided such evidence. See Northern
Telecom Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 941, 15 USPQ2d
1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Invalidity for lack of enablement
is a conclusion of law and must be supported by facts proved by
clear and convincing evidence, for the grant of the patent by the
PTO carries with it the presumption of validity including
compliance with § 112.”)
The appellants argue that Nakamura teaches that
polypropylene is critical to the disclosed invention (brief,
page 10; reply brief, page 4). What Nakamura discloses as being
significant is that the highly hydrophilic cotton or rayon fibers
and the highly oleophilic polypropylene are entangled and blended
so that a nonwoven fabric having an excellent wiping property in
both the wet and dry states is obtained (page 5), not that the
oleophilic polymers include polypropylene. Nakamura teaches that
two kinds of incompatible oleophilic polymers “such as”
polypropylene and polyester can be used (page 6).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007