Appeal No. 96-1943
Application No. 08/147,008
and thus practice the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. In making this determination we emphasize
that no details of these elements have been set forth in the
claims and, accordingly, the scope of enablement is
commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the
claims. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236,
239 (CCPA 1971) and In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502, 190
USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976).
We are at a loss to understand the examiner’s contention
the appellant has not shown and described any micrometer
structure. A “typical” micrometer mechanism is illustrated in
FIG. 1B of the drawings and described on pages 16 and 17 of
the specification.
We are also at a loss to understand how the term
“generally perpendicular” makes the disclosure non-enabling.
Words such as "generally" are well known in the lexicon of
specification preparation and one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that “generally perpendicular” allows for a
reasonable deviation from something that was exactly
“perpendicular.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007