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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007