Appeal No. 1998-3416
Application 08/096,538
circuitry for producing a global production strategy list from said priorities list and
said goals list; and
circuitry for resolving a choice from said goals list.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Litt et al. (Litt) 5,148,370 Sept. 15, 1992
Claims 1 through 12 stand rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
being based upon an inadequate disclosure. These claims also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Litt alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections.
Turning first to the rejection of the claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112, the specification of the patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use
the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo
Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118
S.Ct. 397 (1997). This same case indicates that the scope of the claims must bear a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007