Appeal No. 97-2885
Application 08/384,847
and to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.2
The first rejection rests on the examiner's determination
that the appellant's specification fails to comply with the
enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The
dispositive issue with regard to this provision is whether the
appellant's disclosure, considering the level of ordinary
skill in the art as of the date of the appellant's
application, would have enabled a person of such skill to make
and use the appellant's invention without undue
experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212
USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling into question the
enablement of the appellant's disclosure, the examiner has the
2The examiner has refused entry of the reply brief filed
by the appellant on February 24, 1998 (Paper No. 18).
Accordingly, we have not considered the arguments advanced in
the reply brief in reviewing the merits of the instant appeal.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007