Appeal No. 97-2650 Page 4
Application No. 08/489,257
drawings, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The examiner rejected claims 12 through 14 and 17 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth
in the objection to the specification. The specification was
objected to as failing to provide an adequate written description
of the invention. Specifically, the examiner stated (answer, pp.
3-4) that
[t]he specification fails to disclose the structure which
comprises the following elements: chain end coupler; chain
guide; taut switch; sensor plate; indicator arm; drive
member, drive shaft, and gear box as to their structural
relationship with the sprocket pulley; equipment plate; it
is not known how the solenoid bolt 27 as indicated in the
amended drawings passes through the chain guide 32 and the
chain end coupler 31 inasmuch as the drawings do not
illustrate an aperture to allow the passage of the solenoid
bolt 27 therethrough; it is not known what structure permits
movement of the sprocket pulley; it is not known what
circuitry the circuit board 41 comprises.
It is well settled that the written description and
enablement requirements are separate and distinct from one
another and have different tests. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d
1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Barker, 559
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007