Appeal No. 97-0819
Application 08/252,063
before considering the issues raised by the examiner under §
112, first paragraph. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). In doing so, we find that even if
the term “mechanical strength” is not a term of this art area,
and we believe that it is, the disclosure of the concepts of
“mechanical strength” as well as “mechanical damage” at col.
1, line 64, to col. 2, line 18, of appellants’ specification
along with the examples of materials having “greater
mechanical strength than silicon” provided therein at col. 3,
lines 2-7, would clearly convey to one skilled in this art the
concept of “mechanical strength.” Thus, we are of the view
that one skilled in this art would reasonably understand the
subject matter claimed through the use of this term. The
Beachcombers, Int’l. v. WildeWood Creative Prods., 31 F.3d
1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Moore,
supra.
Turning now to the enablement issues, we fail to find in
the record any reasonable explanation why one skilled in this
complex art area would be unable to practice the invention as
claimed without undue experimentation. Indeed, we find no
reason in the record why one of ordinary skill in this art
would even find it difficult to determine which “materials
have a greater mechanical strength than silicon,” the
“thickness” at which these materials may be used with respect
to any particular memory card, which cards are of no standard
depth, or the material which may be used for the “chip”
serving as a component of the support and the support module.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007