Appeal No. 2002-0767
Application No. 09/382,381
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 11, filed October 16, 2001) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 8, 10 through 13, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, wherein the examiner has urged that the specification
fails to provide an enabling disclosure. It is by now well-
established law that the test for compliance with the enablement
requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether
the disclosure, as filed, is sufficiently complete to enable one
of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238-39 (CCPA 1971). See also In re
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007