Appeal No. 2000-0703
Application No. 08/490,268
thoroughly familiar with print masks. These designers
would fully understand how to implement a modification
to their prior designs to print lines of text starting
from other than the top nozzle in a printhead.
We agree with the appellants’ position. Appellants have clearly
indicated the problem and the solution of the problem in the
disclosure. Appellants disclose with adequate written
description (for example, page 9, lines 7 through 11; page 10,
line 32 through page 11, line 14; page 12, line 3 through page
13, line 36) that various nozzles and ink ejection elements are
activated at different occasions instead of always using the top
ink ejection elements and nozzles to assure the uniform wearing
of the nozzles and the ink ejection elements. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8, 10, 13
through 20 and 24 through 26 for lack of a written description.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
Lack of Enablement
The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art
could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosure
coupled with information known in the art without undue
experimentation. See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857
F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re
Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPO 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007