Appeal No. 2001-0205 Page 9
Application No. 08/692,016
5
enabled in the manner required by the first paragraph of Section 112, and thus
independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent claims 2 and 4-10 are not in compliance
therewith.
Additionally, claim 16 states that the knot “is drawn through said hole within walls of
said frame and securely but detachably retained therein” (emphasis added). The initial
question that arises here is whether “therein” refers to the “hole” or to “within walls of said
frame,” that is, whether the knot is retained in the hole or is retained within the walls of the
frame. While the specification states that the knots are “directed” or “pulled” into the slits
(page 7, line 16; page 12, lines 9 and 10), there is no description in the specification that
the knots are retained in the holes nor, in our view, is such an arrangement apparent
therefrom. While not clearly shown, Figures 4, 8 and 9 of the drawings could be
interpreted as showing the knots on the inside of the frame, but no description of such
4(...continued)
5An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are supported by an enabling
disclosure requires a determination of whether that disclosure contained sufficient
information regarding the subject matter of the appealed claims as to enable one skilled in
the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. 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),
cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007