Appeal No. 96-0538
Application 08/126,450
Ghosh et al. (Ghosh) 4,498,079 Feb. 5, 1985
Kellar et al. (Kellar) 4,602,286 July 22, 1986
Ichinose 4,612,569 Sept. 16, 1986
Claims 1 through 4, 8 through 11, 13 through 16, 18 and 20 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to adequately teach how to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 through 4, 8 through 11, 13 through 16, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kellar in view of Ichinose, Barndt and Ghosh.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the appellants and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the rejections.
Turning first as we must to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner has
questioned the enablement of the flow graph display component (Figure 4) of the disclosure (Answer,
pages 3 and 4). Appellants disclose that the icons in the flowgraph display are formed by algorithms
(specification, pages 12 and 13), and that the individual algorithms are known in the art (specification,
pages 10, 14 and 15). Appellants have not disclosed a flowchart or program for integrating all of the
algorithms into the flowgraph. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the examiner had a
reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the disclosure.
The test for enablement under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the skilled
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007