Appeal No. 1998-1433
Application No. 08/241,252
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding that
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
21, mailed September 8, 1997) for the examiner's further
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 20, filed May 12, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 22,
filed November 10, 1997) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
and to the respective positions articulated by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination which follows.
It is by now well-established law that the test for
compliance with the enablement requirement in the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the disclosure, as filed, is
sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary skill in the art
to make and use the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. See, In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238-39 (CCPA 1971) and In re Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566,
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007