Appeal No. 1998-1433
Application No. 08/241,252
dimensional variation as the measure of compensation needed to
achieve an assembled apparatus which works to its intended design
specifications.
After a careful consideration of appellants' disclosure and
of the arguments on both sides, it is our opinion that the level
of skill in the art is sufficiently high that the ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been able to use appellants' method of
assembling an apparatus as set forth in claims 1 and 3 through 11
on appeal, based on appellants' originally filed disclosure,
without the exercise of undue experimentation. As noted by
appellants in the brief (page 5), as a general rule, in a
mechanical case such as this, an applicant is entitled to claims,
when the art permits, which cover more than the specific
embodiment shown. In re Newton, 414 F.2d 1400, 1406, 163 USPQ
34, 39 (CCPA 1969).
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007