Court Opinion

ID: 9448208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:25:33.795127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:19.426279
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge
(dissenting).
I believe that this case should be remanded to the board for further consideration since I am not convinced that the disclosure at bar would not “enable any person skilled in the art * * * to make and use * * * ” the disclosed invention.1
In response to a criticism by the examiner that the disclosure did not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, appellant submitted certain pages from “Proceedings of the Radio Club of America, Inc.” and “Radio Engineering” by Terman, and stated in the form of an affidavit in effect that one skilled in the art would know how to use the information contained in these pages to construct a 2 megacycle saw-tooth generator. Subsequent criticism by the examiner and the board was limited to statements that a saw-tooth generator operable at 2 megacycles is not affirmatively disclosed in these reference pages and affidavit and there is no evidence that anyone has ever built such a generator.
It seems to me that, in order to maintain the position that this application does not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner and the board should also have stated categorically that the information contained in the pages submitted by appellant was not sufficient to teach one skilled in the art how to make a 2 megacycle saw-tooth generator. Further, they should have stated why that is true. It may be that a saw-tooth generator operable at 2 megacycle differs in kind from one operable at 100 or 200 kilocycles, but that fact has not been stated in the record and I do not feel moved to assume that it is or is not true.
Indeed, the examiner’s final rejection and answer and the board’s opinion do not convince me that one skilled in the art could not construct the required sawtooth generator with the knowledge of the reference pages and affidavit submitted by appellant.

. 35 U.S.C. § 112.