Appeal No. 2004-0030 Page 4
Application No. 09/337,492
permit movement of latching member 5 through frame 11', and that
adjustment of H" maintains the second and third distances H and
H' at desired intervals. It is additionally argued that flexible
supports 15 provide a structure for maintaining a gap between
frame 11 and latching member 5.
An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are supported
by an enabling disclosure requires a determination of whether
that disclosure contained sufficient information regarding the
subject matter of the appealed claims as to enable one skilled in
the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. 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 without undue experimentation. See
United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d
1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989);
In re Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA
1976). In order to make a nonenablement rejection, the examiner
has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to
question the enablement provided for the claimed invention. See
In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (examiner must provide a reasonable explanation as to
why the scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007