Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
(CCPA 1976); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 100 USPQ2d 1614, 1618
(Fed. Cir. 1989); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19
USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In establishing a basis for a rejection
under the written description requirement of the statute, the Examiner has
the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in
the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the
invention defined by the claims. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 265, 191 USPQ at
98.
B. ENABLEMENT
In order to comply with the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, the disclosure must adequately describe the claimed
invention so that the artisan could practice it without undue experimentation.
In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 305 (CCPA 1974); In
re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1404, 179 USPQ 286, 293 (CCPA 1973);
In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 774, 135 USPQ 311, 316 (CCPA 1962); and In re
Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the
Examiner has a reasonable basis for questioning the sufficiency of the
disclosure, the burden shifts to Appellant to come forward with evidence to
rebut this challenge. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232
(CCPA 1973); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 950, 177 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA
1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 992, 169 USPQ 723, 728 (CCPA 1971);
and In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir.
1993). However, the burden is initially upon the Examiner to establish a
reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the disclosure. In re
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013