Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989); and In re Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343,
1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
In the present case, it is quite apparent to us, from a
reading of appellants' specification, that one skilled in the art
would be able to practice, i.e., make and use, the now claimed
invention on the basis thereof. More specifically, we readily
discern that the written description of the invention instructs
as to the necessary elements of the claimed fastening and
retention system for a strap, and their interaction with one
another. Of particular importance is appellants' specific
examples of mating structures of a strap and retention loop such
as a protruding member and a slot or recessed area, or hook and
loop fasteners, for securing the retention loop and preventing it
from sliding off the strap. For the above reasons, we determine
that the now claimed subject matter is enabled by the underlying
specification. Thus, the enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, cannot be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007