Appeal No. 1997-0359
Application No. 08/173,485
OPINION
We have considered the record before us and we will
reverse the rejection of claims 14 through 21 and 23 through
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
Analysis
We consider the two rejections separately.
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
Claims 14 through 21 and 23 through 34 are rejected for
the lack of enablement [answer, page 2].
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 (Fed. Circuit. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989); In re Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343,
1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
Thus, the dispositive issue is whether Appellants’
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art
as of the date of Appellants’ application, would have enabled
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007