Appeal No. 2001-0688
Application No. 08/689,721 Page 8
required to make and use the invention, with the order of the
steps, as claimed.
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 7 and 8) that the claimed
sequence of steps is reasonably enabled, at least implicitly,
from the disclosure. Appellant further asserts (brief, page 9)
that the test for enablement is not whether any experimentation
is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is
undue, citing In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214,
219 (CCPA 1976). Appellant provides an analysis (brief, pages
9-12) of factors to be used in determining whether any necessary
experimentation is undue, citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737,
8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 10) that:
The nature of the invention is a device and a method
of suspending the recorder. The device is a ring with
a strap. The strap goes around the neck of a child,
and the recorder goes on the ring. These two steps
do not depend on each other. One does not require
the other. As such, they can be done in either order,
or even simultaneously.
From our review of the entire record, we find that claims 11 and
12 do not require the that step of "suspending the strap from the
neck of the user" be carried out in the order listed in the
claim, and that the step of "suspending the strap from the neck
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007