Appeal No. 1998-3301 Page 9
Application No. 08/784,361
claims 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
The enablement rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4 through
19 and 25 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 4
An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are
supported by an enabling disclosure requires a determination
of whether that disclosure contained sufficient information
regarding the subject matter of the appealed claims 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
4This rejection concerns the locking system for the doors
and the motorized system of Figure 15 (see page 2 of the final
rejection). This rejection no longer concerns the manner in
which the mail flag is maintained in place, since such
objection has been rescinded by the examiner (answer, p. 4).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007