Appeal No. 96-2866 Page 11
Application No. 08/185,221
skill in the art. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ
214, 218 (CCPA 1976). Moreover, the specification must teach
those of skill in the art how to make and use the invention as
broadly as it is claimed. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046,
1050, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2013 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, as we have noted above in the rejection of these
claims based on a lack of descriptive support, independent
claim 24 sets forth that the "fixation wire" (which as broadly
recited includes all such wires) requires "comparatively more
force" for removal from the bone than would be required for a
fixation wire that was inserted by rotation. The appellant's
disclosure provides no adequate teaching of how all fixation
wires may installed or inserted in such a manner so as to
require "comparatively more force for removal" from the bone
than would be required for a fixation wire installed by
rotation. According to the comparative showing in Fig. 8, the
appellant's disclosed method, at the most, will result in only
some the fixation wires (dependent upon the particular diameter
and particular location on the tibia) requiring comparatively
more force for removal.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007