Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
figure 1 at the top of the specification page 5, with respect to figure 2 at the top of the
specification page 6 and with respect to figure 4 at the middle of the specification page 7.
Appellant’s specification also discusses in general terms the underlying theory at
specification pages 2 and 3 and again at the middle of page 5 of the specification.
In accordance with the earlier noted precedent governing this rejection, it appears
to us that the specification is written from the perspective of requiring a reasonable degree
of experimentation from an artisan’s perspective, and such would have been necessary to
determine the minimum radius of curvature and the relationship thereto of the upper end
acoustical wavelength of the antenna operation in addition to the predetermined number of
derivatives of the radii of curvature. So much of this is obviously application dependent.
However, even though we conclude that some measure of experimentation would be
necessary to make and use the claimed invention as to claims 18 and 19, we cannot
conclude that the amount of experimentation needed would have resulted in an excessive
amount to the artisan. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under the
enablement portion of the first paragraph of 35 USC § 112.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection under the written description portion of 35
USC § 112, first paragraph of claims 30 and 32 because, in the examiner’s view, the
specification as originally filed does not provide support for the invention as is now
claimed in these two claims relating to filling the interiors of the antenna body and skirt with
solid material. At the outset, the examiner’s reasoning for lack of “support” for the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007