Appeal No. 2004-0837
Application No. 09/778,481
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737,
8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d
560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974). In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d
488, 496 n.23, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444-45 n.23 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
instructs us that:
The first paragraph of § 112 requires nothing more than
objective enablement. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220,
223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971). How such a
teaching set forth, either by the use of illustrative
examples or by broad terminology, is irrelevant. Id.
In the present case, the appellants’ specification states in
relevant part (pages 5 and 6):
This invention includes strategically placing the
inspection device 40 relative to the elevator system
components to gather information regarding the portion
of the belt that is most likely to experience wear or
deterioration over time. A variety of factors should
be considered when determining the optimum placement of
the inspection device.
These factors include the number and nature of
bends that various sections of the belt experience as
the elevator travels in the hoistway, the diameter or
size of the sheaves over which the belt bends,
distances between the sheaves, the angle of the belt
wrapped around the sheaves, and the worst case loading
on various sections of the belt.
As those skilled in the art will appreciate, these
factors are dependent upon several variables, such as
elevator roping arrangements, the location of the drive
mechanism or machine, the use and placement of
deflector sheave, and the floor within the building at
which the worst case car loading conditions typically
occur. This invention utilizes one or more of these
factors for determining the ideal placement of the
inspection device.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007