Appeal No. 1999-1779
Application No. 08/480,561
of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the
invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc v. Muhurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-
64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In our view, the
description of the invention provided in the application is
sufficient to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the appellant was in possession of the claimed invention at
the time the application was filed.
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, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989). It is our opinion that the
disclosure of the invention provided in the specification
meets this test.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Turning to the rejection under the second paragraph of
Section 112, while not explicitly stated, it would appear that
the examiner believes the claims are indefinite because the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007