Appeal No. 1998-2817
Application No. 08/455,366
the relaxed circumferential length of the closed loop waist
elastic system than they would be if a relaxed circumferential
length were recited, that does not make the claims indefinite.
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
We will also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through
26 and 28 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are
supported by an enabling disclosure requires a determination
of whether that disclosure contained sufficient information
regarding the subject matter of the appealed claims as to
enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the
claimed invention. 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. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989); In re
Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
In order to make a rejection, the examiner has the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007