Appeal No. 1998-0632
Application 08/301,812
page 16; the comparison discussion at the bottom half of page
23 and the summary of the invention at the end of the
specification at page 30. Additionally, as to this
correlation feature, the latter half of the abstract at page
42 of the specification as filed relates to various types of
feedback information which are derived as a function of
correlated data during the inspection operations set forth
earlier in the abstract.
Thus, it would have been readily appreciated by the
artisan that appellants have presently disclosed in this
application a written description of the action station
claimed, and the claimed correlation and prediction features.
Therefore, a11 rejections under the written description
portion of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as to these
features are reversed.
As to the enablement issue, the specification of the
patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use
the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42
USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 397
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007