Appeal No. 1997-0823
Application 08/403,946
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement requirement if it allows those of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. See In re Wright,
999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d
1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner argues that appellants’ specification is not
enabling because it does not set forth the basis (i.e.,
weight, volume or molar) for the percentages therein (answer,
page 4). This argument is not well taken because the examiner
has not explained why, regardless of the basis for the
percentages in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the
art could not have carried out the claimed invention without
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007