Appeal No. 2001-2097
Application No. 09/052,849
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence and
arguments relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that Appellants’ specification in this application describes the
claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we reverse.
As to the Examiner’s assertion of lack of enablement of
Appellants’ disclosure, we note that, in order to comply with the
enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
disclosure must adequately describe the claimed invention so that
the artisan could practice it without undue experimentation.
In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 303 (CCPA
1974); In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1404, 179 USPQ 286, 293
(CCPA 1973); and In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 774, 135 USPQ 311, 316
(CCPA 1962). If the Examiner has a reasonable basis for
-3–3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007