Appeal No. 96-1615
Application 08/249,650
granted, somewhat structurally broad but, on the other hand,
functionally specific as to the recitations of the spectral
transmittance and reflectance properties of the coating
material. We do not regard each of the independent claims as
an overly broad recitation of an invention which clearly
details and justifies the functional recitations based upon a
relatively large number of alternating high and low refractive
index layers in three different stack configurations, the
details of which are set forth in the dependent claims. The
specification does not detail how such spectral properties as
recited in each independent claim would be achievable by any
means with a lesser number of layers than those disclosed.
Generally speaking, the bottom line is still that
"[t]he test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in
the art could make or [sic and] use the invention from the
disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in
the art without undue experimentation." United States v.
Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223
(Fed. Cir. 1988), citing Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007