Ex Parte Sansone - Page 16

                Appeal 2007-2446                                                                              
                Application 09/817,998                                                                        
                      We now enter a new rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first                    
                and second paragraphs.  As discussed above, claim 22 is dependent upon                        
                and further modifies claim 1 by reciting that “the recipient is notified via                  
                television of the availability of the deposited mail.”  We find that it is                    
                ambiguous as to whether the scope of claim 22 requires: a) that the tactile                   
                communication device is a television, or b) that the user is notified by tactile              
                communication device and a television.  Appellant’s specification sheds no                    
                light on the issue as it does not address notification by television.2  It is for             
                the later interpretation that we apply the rejection under the first paragraph                
                of 35 U.S.C. § 112.                                                                           
                      The test for enablement under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,                   
                is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the claimed                    
                invention from the disclosed subject matter together with information in the                  
                art, without undue experimentation.  United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857                 
                F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  A disclosure can be enabling even though                     
                some experimentation is necessary.  Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal                              
                Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986).                                       
                      Appellant’s Specification on page 10, lines 20 through 22, discuss that                 
                the tactile communications device may be a personal computer with a Braille                   
                printer.  We do not find any disclosure in Appellant’s Specification of using                 
                a television as a tactile display device.3  Similarly, there is no evidence of                
                                                                                                              
                2 We consider the written description requirement to be met as Appellant’s                    
                originally filed claim 22 is substantially identical to the current claim 22.                 
                3 We note that we consider claim 19 (recipient notified by e-mail) and claim                  
                21 (recipient notified by facsimile) to be enabled as they both deal with                     
                electronic document formats which with minimal experimentation could be                       
                printed out with a computer and Braille printer.  Further, we consider claim                  
                                                     16                                                       


Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013