Appeal 2007-4234 Application 10/929,891 diluent or type of diluent. Thus, it appears to us that claim 1 simply requires a surfactant which, for example, liquifies the wax, i.e., which reduces its surface tension sufficient to make it readily dispersible in a diluent, to satisfy step (a) of chemically treating the crystalline wax. The specification describes surfactants which are "good emulsifying and dispersing agents for oils and solids" (FF 12) as well as fluorocarbon alcohols said to enhance the action of a surfactant by further lowering the surface tension of the oil or solid (FF 13). The specification further describes plasticizers said to enhance the rate of conversion of crystalline wax to amorphous wax (FF 15). The specification still further describes hydrotrope-demulsifiers and chelating agents said to increase the solubility of the wax in a hydrocarbon (FF 16) (see e.g., claim 4 wherein the diluent is a hydrocarbon). Nothing more than objective enablement is required. It is irrelevant whether this teaching is provided through broad terminology or illustrative examples. Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 223, 169 USPQ at 369. Here, the Examiner has not explained why one skilled in the art, reading the disclosure of Appellant's specification plus the scope of what would have been known to the skilled artisan, would have required undue experimentation to make and use the methods of claims 1-19. The Examiner's finding that the specification only described one specific chemical dispersant (FF 21) is not a sufficient reason for doubting the scope of enablement provided by the specification. It is well established that even a broad claim can be enabled by disclosure of a single embodiment. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 3 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Since the Examiner has not met his initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why he believes that the scope of 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013