Appeal No. 95-3400
Application 08/179,793
This utility corresponds to the recognized utility of similar
sulfur-containing polymers in the art as discussed in the
“Background of the Invention” section of appellants’
specification. To satisfy the enablement or utility requirement
of the statute, an applicant need not teach or explain in detail
that which is apparently known in the art. In re Howarth,
654 F.2d 103, 105-06, 210 USPQ 689, 691-92 (CCPA 1981).
As for the examiner’s focus on a single nonexemplified
embodiment of the claimed invention, e.g., use of 1,10-
decanedithiol as a reactant, we again note that the examiner’s
comments regarding this embodiment are entirely speculative in
nature. In any event, the statute does not necessarily require
an appellant to exemplify or establish operability/utility for
every single embodiment within the scope of the claims. In re
Dinh-Nguyen, 492 F.2d 856, 858, 181 USPQ 46, 47-48 (CCPA 1974);
In re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867, 872, 158 USPQ 320, 323-24 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007