Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
teachings,3 and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Enablement
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 10,
12, and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being based upon a disclosure lacking enablement.
The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art
could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosure,
coupled with information known in the art, and without undue
experimentation. See United States v. Telectronics, Inc.,
3
3 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007