Appeal No. 1999-0928
Application No. 08/334,952
Therefore appellants have provided a credible utility for the
claimed subject matter and thus satisfy the utility requirement
of § 101.
Similarly, the examiner has provided no basis or support for
the assertion that the specification disclosure is non-enabling.
Appellants have provided a schematic diagram and an example
disclosing how to make and use the claimed invention (Brief,
pages 17-21; specification, pages 15-25). The examiner’s
citation of numerous references that refute claims to “cold
fusion” show that “cold fusion” would not occur without the
production of tritium, neutrons, helium-4 and gamma rays (see,
for example, Hilts, Chapline, Lewis, Alber, Faller, Hajdas,
Ziegler, and Jones). The examiner has not cited any disclosure
or allegation by appellants that such by-products of “cold
fusion” have been produced. As discussed above, the examiner has
not shown that appellants are claiming or alleging that their
method involves “cold fusion.” See Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, 562
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007