Appeal No. 96-2192
Application 08/306,856
In the context of the appropriate judicial standard for
review of enablement issues being whether the claimed
invention would have required the artisan to exercise undue
experimentation to make and use the claimed invention, we
conclude that no such undue experimentation would have been
necessary for the artisan to have either implemented a
specific type of surgical instrument with respect to the
Figure 1 and 2 embodiments or a specific type of blocking
element to the specific type of surgical device set forth in
the Figure 3 embodiment. Stated differently, we are of the
view that from an artisan's perspective only a reasonable
degree of experimentation would have been necessary to have
enabled him or her to make and use the claimed invention.
For example, the blocking element is set forth in the
summary of the invention in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and
4 of the specification as filed as blocking or inhibiting the
use of a whole surgical instrument such as blocking an
actuation knob thereof. With respect to the Figure 1
embodiment, the discussion in the paragraph bridging pages 7
and 8 makes specific reference to blocking or locking an
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007