Appeal No. 1997-3146
Application 08/558,670
by an artisan using well-known compounds in the computer arts.
We agree with the Examiner that the details of the
control means 22 and the setting means 24 are not set forth in
the specification. However, 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
does not require the Appellants to disclose shop drawings of
their invention. Appellants must provide a disclosure that
adequately describes the claimed invention so that the artisan
would have been able to practice the invention without undue
experimentation. We find that Appellants have provided a dis-
closure of the control means 22 and setting means 24 such that
an artisan would have been able to practice the invention
without undue experimentation. Thus, the Examiner has not
provided a reasonable basis for questioning the sufficiency of
the dis- closure. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of Appellants' claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007