Appeal No. 95-3811
Application No. 08/249,081
the prosecution history of this application. However, the
examiner has made no effort to provide a nexis of the
enumerated deficiencies noted in the answer to the subject
matter of the present claims on appeal. As disclosed, the
context of the implementation of the disclosed and closed
invention is the formats and standards provided by the
International Consultative committe for Telegraphs and
Telephones ‘CCITT’ H. 261 video standard. The examiner does
not appear to appreciate the impact that such standards have
upon the level of enablement necessary to meet the first
paragraph of U.S.C. 112.
It is not neccessarily fatal that appellant may albeit,
as has been done during the prosecution of this application,
that certain errors occured in the original filing of the
translation or even the original priority document itself.
What is significant is that the standard of judging such a
disclosure remains that under expermintation must be necessary
for the artist to make and use the claimed invention for such
a rejection to be sustained. While some degree of
experimentation is permited in order for a specification to be
considered enabling under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007