Appeal No. 2003-0663
Application No. 09/072,549
statement. The examiner has not advanced any such evidence or an
acceptable line of reasoning inconsistent with enablement and,
therefore, has not sustained his/her burden.
An affidavit declaration by an expert, rather than the
person of ordinary skill, is one alternative available to
demonstrate enablement. In re Longe, 644 F.2d 856, 209 USPQ 288
(CCPA 1981). While the Ludwig declaration is offered by
appellants to demonstrate enablement, an acceptable form of
evidence, the examiner never addresses the credentials of Mr.
Ludwig nor does the examiner address the statements made in the
declaration proffered to demonstrate enablement. Thus, again, we
will not sustain the rejection under enablement because, on
balance, it is our view that appellants make a colorable case for
enablement while the examiner falls far short of stating a
reasonable case for non-enablement.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 12-15, 17,
21-25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner rejects all of the independent claims based on
the single reference to Verhoeckx, contending that the reference
teaches the claimed system, with an analog video-signal source
(abstract-line 6), a video display device (apparent), a control
communication component configured to produce digital control
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007