Ex parte SMITH - Page 10




               Appeal No. 95-0761                                                                                                      
               Application 08/050,511                                                                                                  


               inadequate written description.                                                                                         
                       A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement                                  
               requirement if it allows those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention                       
               without undue experimentation.   See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513                            
               (Fed. Cir. 1993); Atlas Powder Co. v. E. I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576,                              
               224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  As stated by the court in Wright, 999 F.2d at 1561-62, 27                          
               USPQ2d at 1513:                                                                                                         
                       Nothing more than objective enablement is required, and therefore it is irrelevant                              
                       whether this teaching is provided through broad terminology or illustrative                                     
                       examples. [citation omitted]                                                                                    
                               When rejecting a claim under the enablement requirement of section 112,                                 
                       the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why                             
                       it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately                               
                       enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification of the                                
                       application; this includes, of course, providing sufficient reasons for doubting any                            
                       assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.  If the PTO meets this                           
                       burden, the burden then shifts to the applicant to provide suitable proofs indicating                           
                       that the specification is indeed enabling.                                                                      
                       The examiner’s statements that appellant’ specification does not disclose information and                       
               selection criteria for the pigmented adhesive do not constitute a reasonable explanation as to why                      
               the scope of protection provided by appellant’s claims is not enabled by appellant’s specification.                     
               The examiner has provided no evidence or reasoning which shows that one of ordinary skill in the                        
               art, given appellant’s original disclosure, would not have been able to practice appellant’s claimed                    
               invention without undue experimentation.  Hence, we conclude that the examiner has not carried                          
               his burden of establishing a prima facie case of lack of enablement.                                                    
                                                                  10                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007