Appeal No. 2001-1739
Application 08/892,903
rod 13, but beam 14 does not show the coupling rod 13 being
received by slot 15. The Examiner argues that claim 5 recites
“the coupling rod is selectively rotatable in a perforation in at
least one of said first and second beams.” It is not supported
by an enabling disclosure. Furthermore, the Examiner argues that
claim 6 language, “the coupling rod is slidable along a length of
a slot in at least one of said first and second beams” is not
supported by an enabling disclosure as well.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not met the initial
burden of making a prima facie showing of nonenablement.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that one of
ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention
from the disclosures coupled with information known in the art
without undue experimentation. See pages 5 and 6 of the brief.
As noted by our reviewing court in Enzo v. Calgene, 188 F.3d
1362, 1371, 52 USPQ2d 1129, 1135 “[t]he statutory basis for the
enablement requirement is found in Section 112, Para. 1, which
provides in relevant part that:
The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using
it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains,
or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use
the same . . . .
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007