Appeal No. 96-0814
Application 08/066,331
No references are relied upon by the examiner in support of
the rejection.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that fails
to adequately teach how to make and use the invention, i.e.,
fails to provide an enabling disclosure. The examiner states:
. . . [T]he specification fails to describe the
structure of the locking mechanism in sufficient detail
such that one of ordinary skill in the art can make
and/or use the invention. The structural relationship
between the locking mechanism and the body is not
sufficiently clear to adequately teach one of ordinary
skill in the art how to make and/or use the invention.
[answer, page 3]
In responding to appellants’ arguments, the examiner adds
the following comments:
Because the examiner is personally unaware of any
locking mechanism which functions as does Appellant’s
[sic, Appellants’] and because the examiner has been
unable in his search to uncover any references which
disclose a locking mechanism which functions as does
Appellant’s [sic] and because Appellant [sic] has
provided no evidence to demonstrate that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have found the locking
mechanism for practicing the claimed locking steps to
be obvious, the specification fails to provide an
enabling disclosure.
. . . [W]hile . . . the specification may explain the
general functional relationship between the locking
mechanism and the body, they fail to demonstrate to one
having ordinary skill in the art how to obtain this
functional relationship. That is, the structure of the
locking mechanism contained within body 25 is not clear
or obvious from these portions of the specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007