Appeal No. 1997-2193
Application 07/986,648
It is also generally understood that an applicant for
patent may be his own lexicographer so long as an applicant
for patent clearly sets forth in applicant's specification the
definition applicant intends for a particular claim term, even
when that definition is different from the conventional, art-
recognized definition. Beachcombers, Int. v. WildeWood
Creative Products, Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653,
1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994); ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator
Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1579, 6 USPQ2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759,
221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
It is incumbent upon the examiner in making a rejection
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, to make out a
prima facie case of lack of enablement. In re Strahilevitz,
668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976); In
re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 678, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA
1975); In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370
(CCPA 1971). Moreover, in determining whether or not a
disclosure is enabling, it has been consistently held that the
enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 requires nothing more than objective enablement. In re
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007