Appeal No. 98-2086
Application 08/539,353
recited in claim 3 which includes both an aperture and "L"
shaped member (claim 3) and first and second mating cylinder
members which form a hinge means (parent claim 1). Thus, the
originally filed disclosure would not reasonably convey to the
artisan that the appellant had possession at that time of the
subject matter presently recited in claims 3 and 6.
Insofar as the enablement requirement is concerned, the
dispositive issue 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).
The brief discussion of the aperture and "L" shaped
member on page 4 of the appellant's specification and the
extremely ambiguous and inconsistent showing of same in
Figures 6 through 9 would not have enabled one of ordinary
skill in the art to make and use the invention set forth in
claims 3 and 6 without undue experimentation.
In summary and for the above reasons:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007