Appeal No. 2006-2457
Application No. 10/358,831
A disclosure may be enabling despite the need for experimentation so long as
such experimentation is not undue. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190
USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976).
In short, the disclosure is enabling based on this record. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection will not be sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner's rejection with respect
to any of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-4, 8, 10,2 20-24, and 30-35 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/jaj/kis
2 Although this issue was not before us on appeal, we note that claim 10 lacks a period at the end
of the claim. In an Ex parte appeal, "the [B]oard . . . is basically a board of review - we
review...rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211
(B.P.A.I. 2001). Consequently, we leave the issue of whether the claim complies with proper
format to the examiner and the appellants.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007