Appeal No. 1999-2264
Application No. 08/549,074
of appellants’ filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been able to make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation.
Rejections (1) and (2) therefore will not be sustained.4
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 12 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
IAC:hh
4
4Our conclusion that the application is in compliance with
the enablement requirement of § 112, first paragraph, should not,
however, be taken as an indication that appellants should not be
required to amend the specification and drawings as the examiner
may deem necessary to provide a complete disclosure.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007