Appeal No. 95-4206
Application No. 07/803,465
We will not sustain either of the rejections under 35
U.S.C. 112. As to the second paragraph, we find nothing
indefinite about the claims. The claims merely call for the
front and rear panel portions to have “small apertures” which
allow “air to flow therethrough while shielding
electromagnetic waves.” There is nothing unclear about the
recitation. The holes must not be so small as to inhibit all
air flow but they must be small enough to shield against
electromagnetic waves leaking through the holes to the outside
of the cabinet. Thus we will not sustain the rejection based
on the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
With regard to the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, the
question to be answered is whether the artisan skilled in this
particular art would have been taught how to make and use the
claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation.
We find that the disclosure is enabling. While some
experimentation by artisans may be necessary in order to
practice the invention, we find that such experimentation
would not be undue. It appears to us that once given the
requirements that the apertures must be large enough to permit
air flow but small enough to shield electromagnetic waves, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007