Appeal No. 97-1437
Application 08/356,227
187 USPQ 664, 667 (CCPA 1975), citing Martin v. Johnson,
454 F.2d 746, 751, 59 CCPA 769, 775, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (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.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being directed to a non-enabling disclosure.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007