Appeal No. 98-0455
Application 08/467,247
claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 on appeal may be found in the Appendix of
appellants’ brief.
The sole rejection presented for our review is that
of claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first para-
graph, as being based on a specification which fails to pro-
vide an enabling disclosure, i.e., which fails to adequately
teach one skilled in the art how to make and use the claimed
invention. On pages 4 through 7 of the answer, the examiner
presents his commentary as to why he considers the present
disclosure to be insufficient. In particular, it is noted on
page 5 of the examiner’s answer that
[t]he examiner agrees that the steps of
claims 3 and 4 are supported by the speci-
fication in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112
first paragraph with the exception of the
"rotating" step. The only enablement pro-
vided by the specification with regards to
rotation of the frame is that the frame is
able to be rotated. The specification
makes no mention as to how one would rotate
the frame in accordance with the claimed
rotating step. The disclosure involves
assembling large mechanical parts of air-
craft wings. It appears that some sort of
mechanical assist device is necessary in
order to provide the force necessary to
perform this rotation of the frame while
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007