Appeal No. 97-1224
Application 08/445,866
to enter and exit the blank in a suitable manner, and provide for
reorienting the blade with respect to the blank so that second
cuts transverse to the first cuts could be accomplished. This
conclusion is supported by evidence in the form of the patent to
Mood (cutting blade entry and exit) and to Schnetzer (rotatable
cutting blades), which were noted by the appellants. As our
reviewing court made clear in In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1226,
187 USPQ 664, 667 (CCPA 1975), citing Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d
746, 172 USPQ 391 (CCPA 1972),
[e]nablement is the criterion, and every detail need
not be set forth in the written specification if the
skill in the art is such that the disclosure enables
one to make the invention.
It would appear that the examiner’s basis for the rejection
is premised on the mistaken belief that only material set forth
in the appellants’ disclosure is available to demonstrate
enablement. As the case law cited above indicates, that belief
is in error.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007