Appeal No. 1998-2904
Application 08/715,256
unduly excessive. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231
USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
480 U.S. 947 (1987).
The nature of the claimed and disclosed invention requires the respective gate
electrodes 22 to be either respectively positively or negatively charged as collecting or
isolating gate electrodes in order to form the separate groups of gate electrodes depicted best
in Figures 2, and 3a through 3c. The examiner's basic view as to non-enablement and the lack
of a best mode is that the showing in Figure 2 of the contact line 29 shows in effect only a
single conductor interconnecting each of the respective gate electrodes 22. It is thus not
apparent to the examiner how some of the gate electrodes receive a positive voltage while
others receive a negative voltage in the same row.
For their part, appellants initially make reference to page 9, lines 23 through 26
statements in the specification as filed indicating the gate circuit 28 supplies the respective
charges to the gate electrodes 22 through the contact lines 29. What this teaching actually
conveys to us at this portion of the specification is that plural groups are supplied by plural lines
29 and not that any respective gate electrode or each respective gate electrode is supplied by
an individual contact line 29.
However, we reverse the enablement rejection because we consider the whole
invention to have been reasonably enabled to the artisan from the context of the whole
disclosure itself to have formed the overall circuit shown in Figure 2 in such a manner as to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007