Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
USPQ at 239 and In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ
298, 305 (CCPA 1974). The experimentation required, in
addition to not being undue, must not require ingenuity beyond
that expected of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976).
We find the invention as disclosed by appellant to be
both confusing and incomplete with regard to some of the
essential details of the invention, like the amount of
tightening of the lag bolts, and the particulars of the
coefficients of friction of the bracket and support structure
at their interface, required to achieve the type of "slight,
controlled, movement" (claims 1 and 7), "controlled amount" of
movement (claim 4) and/or "limited movement" (claim 6) desired
to restrain a given mass (i.e., object to be restrained) in
response to a given shock force (i.e., earthquake magnitude).
We also find appellant’s disclosure to be particularly devoid
of any guidance as to how to design a restraint that "resists,
relaxes, resists, and relaxes in successive stages until the
movement [of the structure?] has subsided" in response to a
violent physical shock, as called for in method claim 3.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007