Appeal No. 1996-2873
Application No. 08/209,194
Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502, 190 USPQ 214, 218
(CCPA 1976); what is necessary is that he
provide a disclosure sufficient to enable one
skilled in the art to carry out the invention
commensurate with the scope of his claims.2
The examiner, however, has not demonstrated that the
specification disclosure (including the working examples
therein) referred by appellants at pages 8 and 9 of the Brief
would not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and
use the claimed aqueous soluble drain sanitizing article
having an “effective amount of hardener”. In re Wands, 858
F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA
1982).
Further, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 50 through 65 and 67 through 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Mortimer,
Rising, Watanabe, Kramer, Wiedrich, Bull and Globus for
essentially those reasons expressed at pages 16 through 19 of
the Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
2Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharms. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213,
18 USPQ2d 1016, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007