Appeal No. 1999-0245
Application No. 08/720,268
A relevant inquiry is whether the scope of enablement is
commensurate with the scope of the claimed subject matter. See
In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976).
According to the examiner, as explained in the enablement
rejection (answer, page 7), the claimed means for determining
liquid level height based upon echo amplitude and time delay
between emissions and detection of echoes is not clearly set
forth in the specification such that one of skill in the art
would be able to make and use the invention.8
Once again, we refer to our earlier review of the claim
language at issue in this rejection, which we determined to be
definite and described in the underlying disclosure.
As we see it, the scope of enablement found in the present
application is commensurate with the scope of the subject matter
8 In this enablement rejection, the examiner again refers to
the objection to the specification which, as earlier indicated,
is not directed to the claimed subject matter but to the matter
of determining the best or strongest echo. We make reference
herein to our earlier commentary on the subject of the objection,
and point out that the matter raised therein is not dispositive
of the enablement issue.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007