Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 5
Application No. 08/226,564
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The enablement rejection
The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make or use the claimed
invention from the disclosure of the application 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).
Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, is directed to the embodiment of the invention
illustrated in Figure 9 and includes the limitation "wherein the mounting end is made of a
compressible material to accommodate different side wall thicknesses among security slots." As
discussed on page 15 of the appellant's specification, the body 16' of the Figure 9 embodiment
is freely rotatable about the central axis 18 with respect to the head support 80'. Further, the
head support 80', while captured within a cavity 82' of the body 16' defined between a head
support retaining rim 111 and a transverse retaining wall 84, is free to move axially within the
cavity relative to the body 16'. The head support 80' is provided with a collar 112 having a
length which is greater than the length of a collar opening 113 defined by the retaining wall so
that the head 58 of a head locking screw 26 seats on a screw locking rim 116 of the collar and
not on the retaining wall 84 of the body 16' (specification, page 16). The screw 26 is threaded
through a threaded head locking aperture 25' in the collar. The mounting end 20' of the body
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007