Appeal Number: 2007-2665
Application No. 11/216,805
1995) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed.Cir.1984)). (“Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification
does not suffice.”).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the prior art rejection of claims number 1-14 has been
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S.C.
555 EAST WELLS ST.
STE. 1900
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
Declarant should have been able to reproduce the polymer films of Genske
utilizing recognized processes. The failure of the Declarant to reproduce the
invention of Genske raises questions as to whether the presently claimed invention
is sufficiently enabled for a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
invention without undue experimentation. In the event of further prosecution, the
issues of the sufficiency of the Specification to support the claimed invention may
need to be explored.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013