Appeal No. 1999-0461
Application No. 08/815,682
page 5). We are not convinced by the examiner’s argument for3
the reasons set forth above regarding that rejection.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
lack of
utility or of nonenablement. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first paragraph,
enablement requirement.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
written description requirement
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In
3Absence of utility can be the basis of a rejection under both 35
U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, see In re Brana, 51 F.3d
1560, 1564 n. 12, 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1439 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Jolles,
628 F.2d 1322, 1326 n.10, 206 USPQ 885, 889 n.11 (CCPA 1980); In re Fouche,
439 F.2d 1237, 1243, 169 USPQ 429, 434 (CCPA 1971).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007