Appeal No. 2001-1918
Application No. 09/096,999
serves as magnetic shielding. The enclosure and grounding structure decreases
transmission of radio frequency interference (RFI) and electro-magnetic interference
(EMI). Col. 1, ll. 6-16. The enclosure effectively encloses and captures any RFI and
EMI that may be transmitted by the ballast circuit or related components. See col. 4, ll.
6-17. We further note that Blocher claims the feature of capturing RFI and EMI
transmitted by the ballast circuit (e.g., claim 2).
Appellant’s argument thus raises the question of whether Blocher is an enabling
disclosure of the claimed invention. Appellant bears the burden of introducing evidence
that Blocher lacks an enabling disclosure. In re Fracolossi, 681 F.2d 792, 793, 215
USPQ 569, 570 (CCPA 1982). Appellant has produced no such evidence. We
therefore take Blocher’s disclosure at face value -- i.e., the invention operates as the
reference describes.
Appellant points to evidence (i.e., text from a book addressing “Grounding and
Shielding”) suggesting that aluminum may not be as effective as other materials at
shielding low-frequency magnetic fields.5 (Brief, ¶ bridging pp. 9 and 10.) Blocher
discloses housing 10 as “preferably made of aluminum” (col. 3, ll. 48-49). We thus
might assume that embodiments of appellant’s invention more effectively shield low-
frequency magnetic fields than does the preferred embodiment of Blocher. However,
5 Appellant does not suggest that the evidence is submitted to show that Blocher lacks an
enabling disclosure. We find that the equivocal nature of the language in the text concerning what “may
be” insignificant or “may be” necessary is such that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Blocher
lacks an enabling disclosure. However, the evidence may be viewed as showing that aluminum is not the
best material for shielding low-frequency magnetic fields.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007