Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
allegedly critical feature tends to rebut the argument of
criticality, and (3) features that are merely preferred are not
critical. While we appreciate that there are portions of
appellants’ disclosure (e.g., page 13, line 12, through page 14,
line 7) that generally track the language of claims 1-12 with
respect to the properties of the adhesive recited in these
claims, it is not apparent, and appellants have not argued, that
adhesives having the characteristics of claims 1-12 necessarily
possess the rheological property expressly stated in appellants’
specification as being critical to the present invention. Based
on our reading of the specification in its entirety, and in
particular those portions noted above that very few adhesive
compositions are completely satisfactory for appellants’ purpose,
that the requirements for such adhesives are stringent, that
adhesives of the type used in appellants’ invention that are
applied to sensitive areas of the human body require further
special characteristics, and that the rheology property, tan
delta, described on page 24, lines 16-24, is critical to the
present invention, we conclude that the examiner was justified in
rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
not being supported by an enabling disclosure.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007