Ex parte ACHENBACH et al. - Page 8




                  Appeal No. 1998-0138                                                                                                                     
                  Application 08/381,809                                                                                                                   

                                             objective truth of the statements contained therein which must                                                
                                             be relied on for enabling support.                                                                            
                  In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971).  It follows that the                                                  
                  examiner has the initial burden of challenging a presumptively correct assertions in the disclosure.                                     
                  Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 224, 169 USPQ at 370.  It is incumbent upon the examiner, whenever a                                              
                  rejection on this basis is made, to explain why he doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a                                    
                  supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of his own with acceptable evidence or reasoning                                         
                  which is inconsistent with the contested statement.  Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 224, 169 USPQ at 370.                                        


                           The examiner has not met this burden.  As seen from the rejection quoted above, the examiner                                    
                  has set forth only the unsupported assertion that the one skilled in the art would consider the                                          
                  specification not to be enabling.  The examiner has not provided any evidence or any reasoning                                           
                  supporting the conclusion that a person skilled in the art would be required to undertake an undue                                       
                  amount of experimentation to use the invention with a palladium compound including a carboxylic acid                                     
                  radical of the formula OCOR’ in which R’ is substituted.                                                                                 
                           The rejection of claims 6, 7 and 18 is reversed.                                                                                


                                                                     REVERSED                                                                              





                                                                                           )                                                               
                                             FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior                      )                                                               
                                             Administrative Patent Judge                   )                                                               
                                                                                           )                                                               
                                                                                           )                                                               
                                                                                           ) BOARD OF PATENT                                               

                                                                            8                                                                              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007