Appeal No. 2004-2235
Application No. 09/195,005
2) said work station wagons are conveyed along said oval
track, and
3) once said work station wagons reach another one of said
gaps, said first guide roller is disengaged from the carrier cage
on said drive chain and said workstation wagons are connected via
said second guide roller to a coupling element on said removal
guide track.
THE REJECTION
Claims 7, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which is non-
enabling.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
May 3, 2004 and July 26, 2004) and to the answer (mailed May 26,
2004) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Insofar as the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is concerned, the dispositive issue is whether
the appellant's disclosure, considering the level of ordinary
skill in the art as of the date of the application, would have
enabled a person of such skill to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668
F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling
into question the enablement of the disclosure, the examiner has
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007