Ex Parte Lingle - Page 10

                 Appeal 2007-0408                                                                                       
                 Application 10/150,014                                                                                 
                        With respect to the enablement rejections made by the Examiner,                                 
                 more is required in terms of evidence to support the rejection.  As we find                            
                 above, the Examiner has established that the scope of the claims is broader                            
                 than the description of the invention in the original Specification.  The                              
                 Examiner contends that “[w]ithout guidance from the prior art or appellant’s                           
                 own disclosure, due to the vast number possible material combinations, there                           
                 is insufficient information provided to one of ordinary skill in the art to                            
                 practice the invention commensurate with the entire scope of the instant                               
                 claims.” (emphasis added) (Answer 8).  But this statement overlooks the fact                           
                 the Examiner must take into account guidance within the prior art when                                 
                 considering enablement.  The inventor need not include in the specification                            
                 that which is already known and available to one of ordinary skill in the art.                         
                 See In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 105, 210 USPQ 689, 691-92 (CCPA 1981)                                 
                 (“An inventor need not, however, explain every detail since he is speaking to                          
                 those skilled in the art.”).  There is a lack of evidence with regard to the                           
                 foundation of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art of glass coating                           
                 on this record.  The Examiner has not provided evidence that one skilled in                            
                 the art could not select the appropriate metal oxide and dielectric compounds                          
                 for use in the coating of the claims.                                                                  
                        The Examiner further finds that the Specification teaches that the ten                          
                 layers (a) through (j) are critical for obtaining the durability, heat treatability,                   
                 and low emissivity desired (Answer 8-9).  The Examiner, however, does not                              
                 provide any reasoning or evidence in support of this statement.  As pointed                            
                 out by Appellant, the Specification does not state that any particular layer or                        
                 combination of layers is critical.  In the face of silence it was incumbent on                         
                 the Examiner to provide reasoning or evidence in support of criticality.  We                           

                                                          10                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013