Appeal No. 2001-0342 Page 4
Application No. 08/677,707
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
We sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 14 to 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
It is well settled that the description and enablement
requirements are separate and distinct from one another and
have different tests. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520,
222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
1209 (1985); In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194 USPQ 470,
472 (CCPA 1977); and In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169
USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971). However, from our reading of this
rejection (answer, pp. 4-5) it is unclear to us if this
rejection is based on the written description requirement or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007