Appeal No. 2005-1076
Application No. 10/047,941
sentence). No further explanation is provided under the heading
"Issue 1." Accordingly, appellants have failed to provide the
requisite underlying factual rationale explaining how the
original specification describes Q as NR'.
Regarding the examiner's § 112, non-enablement rejection of
the claim recitation of Q, appellants maintain that "there is
sufficient guidance, for example, in the examples of the instant
disclosure, pages 38-45, to enable a person skilled in the art to
make polymers where Q is O or NR'" (page 6 of Brief, first
paragraph). However, we agree with the examiner that appellants'
statement "is not exactly specific information" (page 5 of
Answer) which identifies where, specifically, in the eight cited
pages is enablement found for the claim recitation. It is not
within the province of this Board to independently read
appellants' specification and ferret out a particular disclosure
that supports appellants' conclusory remarks. In our view,
appellants have not satisfied their burden of providing a
substantive response to the examiner's rejection.
We also find that appellants have not adequately rebutted
the examiner's reasonable rejection that there is not descriptive
and enabling support in the specification for both the claim 134
limitation that "L is a non-interfering substituent" and the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007