Appeal No. 2003-1926 Page 11
Application No. 09/095,842
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(citations omitted).
The fact is that dispersions having the claimed parameters are, indeed, described in a way that
indicates that Appellants had possession of them at the time the application was filed even if they
are disclosed in the context of comparative examples rather than inventive examples.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish that the claims lack written
descriptive support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-11 as failing to meet the
enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 is affirmed, but the decision of the Examiner to
reject claims 6-17 as failing to meet the written description requirement of the statute is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007