Appeal No. 98-3299
Application 08/335,331
We find that these terms are adequately described in the
disclosure.
We now review the Examiner’s contention regarding the
non- existence of an “enabling embodiment of the above
elements” and regarding the lack of “enabling program, flow
chart of the computer operations, or algorithm”. [Answer,
page 5]. We have considered corresponding Appellants’
arguments. [Brief, pages 18 to 20]. We have also reviewed
the relevant portions of the specification [figure 3 and pages
9 through 16], as well as the Newman Declaration [paper no.
16]. We conclude that there is sufficient structure of the
apparatus disclosed for the required enablement. As for the
computer program or a flow chart, Appellants are required to
show an enabling disclosure and need not describe all the
actual embodiments, MPEP Section 2164.02, (7th Edition, July
1998), and they have so shown. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 93
based on the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007