Appeal No. 1997-1373
Application No. 08/478,811
§ 1.132. In particular, Mr. Simpson, at page 4 of the
declaration, makes reference to the example of the mathematical
model provided at pages 16-18 of Appellant’s specification. In
our view, Mr. Simpson’s statements that all of the functions
required to obtain a value for the level of interference for a
multi-channel, multi-base station radio system are contained in
the model example is persuasive evidence relating to the
adequacy of Appellant’s disclosure.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner
has not established a reasonable basis for challenging the
sufficiency of the instant disclosure. For all of the reasons
discussed supra, we are persuaded that the present disclosure is
of sufficient detail so as to enable one of ordinary skill to
implement an operative embodiment of the invention without undue
experimentation.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
19-23 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 19-23 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007