Appeal No. 2001-2671 Page 9
Application No. 09/258,155
provided an explanation that clearly supports such a
determination. Since the examiner has not weighed the
factors, the examiner's conclusion of nonenablement cannot be
sustained.
Furthermore, it is our view that it would not require
undue experimentation to practice the invention as set forth
in claim 1 under appeal. In that regard, from a review of the
prior art cited in the record of this application, we conclude
that a person skilled in the art would know how to make and
use (1) a drive mechanism for controlling movement of a
vehicle roof that is to be moved by power in opening and
closing operating directions, (2) a sensor for determining
whether the roof is fully open, and (3) a circuit whereby if
the roof is fully open, a closing operation of the roof is
triggered, and if the roof is not fully open, an opening
operation of the roof is triggered. Thus, we conclude that
one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed
invention from the disclosure without undue experimentation.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007