Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
led to the conclusion that the examiner here has failed to pro-
vide acceptable reasoning which establishes non-enablement.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4 and 7 through 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being directed to a non-
enabling disclosure.
With regard to the second of the examiner's grounds of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (i.e., that the
specification, as originally filed, fails to provide support for
the invention as now claimed in independent claims 1 and 11), we
note that as stated in In re Bowen, 492 F.2d 859, 864, 181 USPQ
48, 52 (CCPA 1974), the description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, "is that the invention claimed be
described in the specification as filed." It is not necessary
that the claimed subject matter be described identically, but the
disclosure originally filed must convey to those skilled in the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007