Appeal No. 1998-2436 Application 08/550,667 17 of appellants’ brief. It appears that the examiner views the Cole declaration (dated August 15, 1996) as providing more information than appellants' specification regarding how to make appellants' filaments. However, the examiner has not explained how this shows undue experimentation. Accordingly, the examiner has not convincingly demonstrated that the artisan would not know how to make a filament having “a substantially diamond-shaped cross section” without undue experimentation. Therefore, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 as lacking an enabling disclosure. III. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, best mode rejection The examiner asserts that the best mode contemplated by the inventor has not been disclosed in view of the evidence found in Mr. Cole’s declaration filed August 15, 1996. (Answer, page 5). On page 19 of the brief, appellants state that the original specification expressly sets forth the steps of drawing and texturizing the extruded filaments. Appellants point to page 8, line 13 and to page 8, line 21 of the specification. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007