Appeal No. 96-0309
Application 08/135,370
the filing date of the application." Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 UPSQ2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
1991), citing In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914, 178 USPQ 620,
623 (CCPA 1973). The written description is a question of
fact. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
"The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled
in the art could make or use the invention from the
disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in
the art without undue experimentation." United States v.
Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223
(Fed. Cir. 1988), citing Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). The Patent and Trademark Office must support a
rejection for lack of enablement with reasons.
In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70
(CCPA 1971). Enablement is a question of law, which may
involve subsidiary questions of fact. Paperless Accounting,
Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 664,
231 USPQ 649, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The examiner's rejection states (EA3-4):
Reading the original disclosure, one skilled in the art
cannot tell where an encoder and an interleaver are
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007