Appeal No. 96-1121
Application 07/873,309
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellants regard as the invention.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, these rejections will be reversed.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement requirement if it allows those of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. See In re Wright,
999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d
1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner asserts that appellants’ specification is
nonenabling because the claims do not recite a number of
characteristics of the device described in the specification
(answer, pages 3-5). The examiner does not explain, however,
3-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007