Appeal No. 2002-1447
Application 09/167,776
area of strand produced per minute increases by 4 and the bath
surface area decreases by 1/4" means, and 4) what information the
appellant wants to disclose in the specification with respect to
figures 2-4 (final rejection mailed June 28, 2000, paper no. 9,
pages 2-3).
The examiner, however, has not explained why, even if the
appellant’s specification has the deficiencies alleged by the
examiner, the specification fails to convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
The examiner’s rationale is directed toward the issue of
enablement rather than written description. A specification
complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement
requirement if it allows those of ordinary skill in the art to
make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). The examiner, however, has not explained why, even
if the appellant’s specification has the deficiencies alleged by
the examiner, the specification would have failed to enable those
of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007