Appeal No. 95-0840
Application 08/029,343
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of the claims under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is to be noted that to
comply with the requirements of the cited paragraph, a claim must
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure and the teachings of the prior art as it would be by
the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ
187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Generally speaking, “[t]he test of enablement is whether one
reasonably skilled in the art could make or [sic and] use the
invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with
information known in the art without undue experimentation.”
United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d
1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), citing Hybritech, Inc. V. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007