Appeal No. 1995-3522
Application No. 07/912,973
the answer would support the notion that undue experimentation
would have been required to practice the invention claimed
herein. Indeed, we agree with appellants (brief, pages 13-32
and reply brief, pages 2-13) that the examiner has not even
fairly represented the teachings of the specification
regarding the claimed system for providing a blood component
product.
Accordingly, in our view, the examiner has not carried
his initial burden of setting forth evidence or sound
technical reasoning which indicates that any person skilled in
the art would not have been enabled by appellants’
specification to
construct the claimed apparatus and carry out the claimed
invention according to the guidelines in appellants’
specification.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007