Appeal No. 1999-2726
Application No. 90/020,635
matter are distinct. In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186
USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, as appellant
points out on page 9 of the brief, cross brace 49 is disclosed
on pages 5 and 6 of the specification as having "opposite
ends" 52 which are secured to axially shiftable ends of the
cross linkage elements, and guide roller supports are attached
to each end of the cross brace. The correspondence between
this disclosure and the claim language in question is such
that we consider that, when read by one of ordinary skill in
light of this disclosure, claim 1 would be sufficiently
precise to comply with the second paragraph of
§ 112.
Accordingly, rejection (2) will not be sustained.
Rejection (1)
It is fundamental that "[i]n order to satisfy the
enablement requirement of § 112, paragraph 1, the
specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to
practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation."
National Recovery Technologies Inc. v. Magnetic Separation
Sys. Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1196, 49 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). In the present case, the examiner specifies a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007