Ex parte AURIOL et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2000-1473                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/765,169                                                  


               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the                  
          appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review,               
          we will not sustain the rejection of claims 14 to 16 under 35               
          U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.                                              


               An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are                     
          supported by an enabling disclosure requires a determination                
          of whether that disclosure contained sufficient information                 
          regarding the subject matter of the appealed claims as to                   
          enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the                 
          claimed invention.  The test for enablement is whether one                  
          skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention                 
          from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art               
          without undue experimentation.  See United States v.                        
          Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223                  
          (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989); In re                
          Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).               










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007