Appeal No. 95-4485
Application 08/097,589
paragraph, on the grounds that the specification fails to
provide an enabling disclosure and that the specification as
originally filed fails to provide adequate written descriptive
support for the invention as now claimed.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
Nonenablement rejection
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement requirement if it allows those of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. See In re Wright,
999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d
1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ specification provides typical and preferred
ranges of oil:yolk:water ratios, and teaches that if too much
water is present, an oil-in-water emulsion is formed (page 5,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007