Appeal No. 96-0992
Application 08/293,936
thereof. We incorporate by reference and reaffirm the
conclusions of the panel in the prior appeal in these matters.
While we appreciate that appellants’ disclosure may not
be as complete as the examiner would like, we conclude that
the newly presented evidence is sufficient to overcome the
examiner’s prima facie case of nonenablement. As stated by
the court in In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1126, 187 USPQ 664,
667 (CCPA 1975) in quoting from Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d
746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972):
To satisfy § 112, the specification disclosure must be
sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary skill in
the art to make and use the invention without undue
experimentation, although the need for a minimum
amount of experimentation is not fatal * * *. Enablement
is the criterion, and every detail need not be set forth in
the written specification if the skill in the art is
such that the disclosure enables one to make the
invention. [Citations omitted.]
Such is the case here, in our view.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007