Appeal No. 1999-1612
Application 08/614,188
On page 3 of the request for rehearing, Appellant
challenges our findings on the failure to include working
examples in his specification. He asserts that “every detail
needed to practice the claimed invention need not be explained
in the specification because ‘what is general and conventional
knowledge in the art is read into the specification’.”
However, as discussed above, the documents presented by
Appellant provide no details on how to overcome the problem of
transmitting caller identification to a caller with Call
Waiting who is at that time engaged in another phone call.
Thus, we find the knowledge needed to overcome this problem is
not general or conventional and the details should have been
included in the specification. It would therefore have
required undue experimentation to make and use the invention.
Thus, we find that the Examiner had a reasonable basis for
questioning the adequacy of Appellant’s disclosure.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007