Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 7
Application No. 08/810,442
II. Enablement Rejection of Claims 3 and 10
We address the two points of contention between the examiner
and appellant. First, the examiner asserts, “[t]he specification
does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use
the invention of claim 3. It is unknown how is one [sic] to make
and use a triple DES type key.” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.) The
appellant alleges, “[t]riple DES key" is a term-of-art. Such
keys are well known.” (Reply Br. at 6.)
“To be enabling under §112, a patent must contain a
description that enables one skilled in the art to make and use
the claimed invention.” Atlas Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir.
1984)(citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 960, 220
USPQ 592, 599 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “That some experimentation is
necessary does not preclude enablement; the amount of
experimentation, however, must not be unduly extensive.” Id.
at 1576, 224 USPQ at 413. “Argument in the brief does not take
the place of evidence in the record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d
600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)(citing In re Cole, 326
F.2d 769, 773, 140 USPQ 230, 233 (CCPA 1964)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007