Appeal No. 1999-1612
Application 08/614,188
necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented,
(3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the
nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6)
the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability
or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the
claims. Id. at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404. We have also noted
that all of the factors need not be reviewed when determining
whether a disclosure is enabling. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai
Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (noting that the Wands factors "are
illustrative, not mandatory. What is relevant depends on the
facts.").
Appellant traverses our findings that: (1) the
specification is devoid of any working examples or guidance
which would provide details needed for one of ordinary skill
in the art to practice an invention directed to the specific
feature claimed of transmitting caller identification
information during a silent interval of a call waiting cycle
and (2) the state of the prior art is such that the skilled
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007