Appeal No. 97-4252 Page 10
Application No. 08/226,520
position of the luminous devices as recited on page 4,
line [sic, lines] 18-22 and page 5, lines 1-7.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-13, reply brief, pp.
2-7) that
[t]he rejection is in error because the specification
presents a sufficient disclosure to so enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention
without undue experimentation.
We agree with the appellant.
An analysis of whether claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are
supported by an enabling disclosure requires a determination
of whether that disclosure contained sufficient information
regarding the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 as to
enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the
claimed invention. The test for enablement is whether one
skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention
from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art
without undue experimentation. See United States v.
Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223
(Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989); In re
Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007