Appeal No. 2001-0342 Page 10
Application No. 08/677,707
Our review of the record reveals that the examiner has
not applied the above-noted factors to determine that undue
experimentation would be required to practice the invention or
provided an explanation that clearly supports such a
determination. Since the examiner has not weighed the
factors, a conclusion of nonenablement cannot be reached.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 11 and 14 to 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on the enablement
requirement cannot be sustained.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 10
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007