Appeal No. 2001-1622 Page 8
Application No. 09/226,969
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).
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 6-7) that the
limitation in claim 14 of "whereby additional air pockets are
formed between said pockets in said second layer and the body
of water" violated the enablement requirement. We do not
agree. We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, p. 7)
that an artisan would understand the appellants' Figure 2 and
description at page 5, lines 5-7, as teaching that the bottom
surface of the opaque layer 15 is formed with pockets 17 which
will trap air therein when the bottom surface of the opaque
layer 15 is placed on the surface of the body of water in a
pool. Thus, the disclosure contains sufficient information as
to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the
subject matter of claim 14 without undue experimentation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007