Appeal No. 97-1437
Application 08/356,227
artisan would have been able to fashion a printing press drive
arrangement of the type defined in appellant's claim 18 on appeal
based on appellant's disclosure, without the exercise of undue
experimentation, and that such printing press drive would be
capable of operation in the manner claimed and generally
disclosed by appellant. More particularly, we point to, and note
our agreement with appellant's arguments on pages 5 through 11
of the brief. Further, in evaluating the level of skill in the
pertinent art, we have reviewed the prior art made of record in
the application by appellant in several Information Disclosure
Statements (Paper Nos. 1½, 5 and 13). Like appellant, we find
that these prior art references are particularly relevant to
understanding the level of knowledge in the art at the time of
filing of the present application and to whether one skilled in
the art would have been able to make and use the invention
claimed herein without undue experimentation. Note particularly,
the patent to Hajek (U.S. Patent No. 5,341,735). The mere fact
that material extraneous to the originally filed disclosure, but
known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
of the application, might be relied upon by the artisan in making
and using the disclosed printing press drive is not fatal. As
the Court made clear in In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1226,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007