Appeal No. 1997-2066
Application 08/537,408
Claims 12-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gilhousen, Labedz, Yamauchi, and
Harrison as applied to claims 1-10.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 25) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 28) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the Appeal
Brief (Paper No. 27) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a
statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement
"The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled
in the art could make or use the invention from the
disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in
the art without undue experimentation." United States v.
Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed.
Cir. 1986)). A patent need not teach, and preferably omits,
what is well known in the art. Paperless Accounting, Inc. v.
Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 664,
231 USPQ 649, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The U.S. Patent and
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007