Ex parte ROBBINS - Page 8




          Appeal No. 2001-0378                                       Page 8           
          Application No. 08/873,876                                                  


               For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the                   
          examiner to reject claims 1 to 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                    
          second paragraph, is reversed.                                              


          The enablement rejection                                                    
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 18 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).               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007