Appeal No. 1996-2308
Application 08/179,008
reasoning.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement requirement if it allows those of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. See In re Wright,
999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du
Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413
(Fed. Cir. 1984). As stated by the court in Wright, 999 F.2d
at 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d at 1513:
Nothing more than objective enablement is required,
and therefore it is irrelevant whether this teaching
is provided through broad terminology or
illustrative examples. [Citation omitted.]
When rejecting a claim under the enablement
requirement of section 112, the PTO bears an initial
burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as
to why it believes that the scope of protection
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007