Appeal No. 96-2454
Application No. 08/052,737
a direction of its shortening.” As we understand the examiner’s
position, it is that this device is not described in the
specification in such a manner as to enable one to make and use
the invention. The appellant, of course, argues that such is not
the case, and he points out various reasons why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had no trouble making and using the
invention. We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant.
Beginning on page 7 of the appellant’s specification there
is a description of telescopic tubes 13 and 14, which concludes
on page 8 with the explanation that the telescopic parts of the
rigid joint splints can be connected to each other by means of an
inner elastic lining or a stretch stop. It is our opinion that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from this
explanation that it is within the scope of the appellant’s
invention to attach the two tubes together by means of an elastic
element which stretches when the elements are moved apart and
which functions to limit the extent of such movement. The
requirement of Section 112 is that the disclosure must be
sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary skill in the art
to make the invention without undue experimentation; every detail
need not be set forth if the skill in the art is such that the
disclosure enables one to make the invention. See In re Gaubert,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007