Appeal No. 2001-1686 Page 8
Application No. 08/363,998
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 54, 55, 57, 59-61
and 72-77 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the basis that the
specification fails to enable the entire scope of the claims, is reversed.
Nonetheless, we decline to decide the specific issue framed by the examiner,
that is, whether or not method claims must be enabled for all disclosed uses in
the specification in order to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LORA M. GREEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007