Appeal No. 2001-2407
Application No. 09/154,703
real structural details, or of actual methods of making these
components...The mere statement that an element is of a certain
size is not enabling” [answer-page 7].
We do not view the examiner’s position as being reasonable.
If the disclosure teaches the claimed dimensions of the
structure, and the drawings show the structure, we do not
understand the examiner’s position that the making of the claimed
and disclosed structure is not enabling, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. 112. There is no requirement, within 35 U.S.C. 112,
that the patent disclosure must be a detailed blueprint. It need
only disclose as much as the skilled artisan would need to make
and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. It
is our view, that, with regard to claims 11/9, 12, and 13/9, the
disclosure is clearly enabling.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11/10, 13/10 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is sustained but the
rejection of claims 10, 11/10, 13/10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, is not sustained.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-18
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
It is the examiner’s position that APA differs from the
instant claimed subject matter only in not having the claimed
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007