Appeal 2007-0001
Application 09/944,589
'experimentation.’" Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-37, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
To evaluate whether a disclosure would require undue
experimentation, the Federal Circuit has adopted the following factors to be
considered:
(1) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the
invention based on the content of the disclosure;
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented;
(3) The existence of working examples;
(4) The nature of the invention;
(5) The state of the prior art;
(6) The relative skill of those in the art;
(7) The level of predictability in the art; and
(8) The breadth of the claims.
Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404. The Examiner's analysis
must consider all the evidence related to each of these factors, and any
conclusion of nonenablement must be based on the evidence as a whole. Id.,
858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s Specification discloses that in vehicle wheel bearing
assemblies of the prior art, a magnetized encoder is integrated together with
a sealing device. The magnetized encoder is formed of an elastic material
such as rubber and a powder of magnetizable material such as ferrite and is
of the design in which magnetic poles of opposite polarities are formed
alternatively in a direction circumferentially thereof and is detected by a
magnetic sensor disposed in a face-to-face relation therewith (Specification
1:18- 2:8).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013