Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
172 USPQ 391, 395 (1972),
[e]nablement is the criterion, and every
detail need not be set forth in the written
specification if the skill in the art is
such that the disclosure enables one to make
the invention.
The statements by the examiner regarding appellants'
use of the prior art cited by the examiner to show what one of
ordinary skill in the art would be expected to know and how one
skilled in the art would go about making the claimed invention,
evidences to us that the examiner's basis for this rejection is
premised on the mistaken belief that only material set forth
expressly in appellants' disclosure is available to demonstrate
enablement. As the case law cited supra, and in appellants'
brief clearly indicates, that belief on the examiner's part is
in error. When this error is coupled with the arguments of
appellants noted above and the fact that the examiner has never
stated, maintained or established that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would be incapable of making and using the disclosed
invention without the exercise of undue experimentation, we are
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007