Appeal No. 2000-0920
Application No. 08/829,034
broad in that it reads on a broad range of embodiments is not
sufficient. The mere fact that a claim embraces undisclosed or
inoperative species or embodiments does not necessarily render it
unduly broad. Horton v. Stevens, 7 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1998), citing: In re Dinh-Nguyen, 492 F.2d 856, 858-
59, 181 USPQ 46, 48 (CCPA 1974); In re Bowen, 492 F.2d 859, 863,
181 USPQ 48, 51-52 (CCPA 1974); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376,
1385, 178 USPQ 279, 286 (CCPA 1973); In re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867,
872, 158 USPQ 320, 324 (CCPA 1968); In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005,
1019, 140 USPQ 474, 486 (CCPA 1964). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
lack of enablement of claims 11-18.
The examiner’s second reason for rejecting claims 11-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is based on the
description requirement found therein. The examiner states
(answer, page 4):
The amendment filed May 4, 1998 presented the new
issue pertaining to the use of the limitation “FDA
approved”. It is not seen where this limitation has
original support and the Examiner posits that it
constitutes new matter with respect to the original
specification and claims.
Appellant’s specification states at page 27, lines 4-5, that
alumina and titanium alloys, materials that may be used to make a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007