Appeal No. 1999-1907
Application No. 08/690,409
has not provided any factual evidence or acceptable scientific
reasoning to the contrary.
Under these circumstances, we cannot uphold the examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of appealed claims 1
through 22.
Concerning the rejection of appealed claims 1, 2, 8 through
14, 19, 21, and 22, the examiner's position is as follows:
The specification does not enable any person
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which
it is most nearly connected, to make the invention
commensurate in scope with these claims.
According to the specification, solvent free
epoxy resins and solvent cyanoacrylate polymer are
unacceptable either because it results in film having
low infrared transmission or rapid cure rate (page 6,
lines 16-33). Furthermore there is no disclosure of
any polymer other than addition curable silicone
polymer which would work in the instant invention.
The chemical structure of addition curable silicone
polymer is not provided in the instant disclosure.
Therefore claiming a solvent free polymer material is
broader in scope.
(Examiner's answer, pages 3-4.)
Again, we hold that the examiner has not met his initial
burden of proof. The examiner's position appears to be based on
the notion that the specification does not contain an
identification of a sufficient number of solvent-free polymer
materials that will work. As we discussed above, the appellants
have argued that any solvent-free polymer material other than
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007