Appeal No. 95-0868
Application 07/987,552
Fourth, since the receivers in Davis do not have different detection threshold levels for detecting
the digital data and since Davis does not check which receivers accurately detected data, Davis does not
select "from the receivers . . . that have accurately detected the digital data, the receiver having the lowest
signal detection threshold level." The selection of receivers in Davis is based on time, not accuracy of the
detected data and manifestly not accuracy and minimum threshold level.
For the reasons stated above, the obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6 is reversed.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a lack of enabling
disclosure of how to make and use the claimed invention. Claim 5 passively requires structure for
determining which receivers "have accurately detected the digital data" so that the CPU can control the
selection means to connect to the CPU "the receiver having the lowest signal detection threshold level."
The specification does not provide an enabling disclosure of how to make and use structure for determining
which receivers "have accurately detected the digital data."
"The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention
from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue
experimentation." United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed.
Cir. 1988), citing Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81,
94 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The specification need not disclose what is well known in the art. In re Buchner,
929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007