Appeal No. 95-0907
Application 07/774,757
specific than the general background noted above. It is not
apparent how the generic feature of simply driving the device
under test through a sequence of testing procedures would require
undue experimentation on the part of one with ordinary skill in
the art. Not every implementation detail has to be described in
a prior art reference. Even a patent specification need not
disclose what would be well known in the art. In re Buchner,
(Fed. Cir. March 1991); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481,
489 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
It is also the appellant's burden to establish that the
prior art is nonenabling. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314-15, 203
USPQ 245, 255-56 (CCPA 1979). Here, no declaration evidence has
been submitted by the appellant from anyone with an opinion on
whether the background and generic teachings of Wang would have
been nonenabling with respect to one with ordinary skill in the
art. Without such evidence and in light of the general nature of
Wang's teaching, the appellant has not established that Wang is
nonenabling with respect to what it has been relied on to show.
However, we agree with the appellant that it is highly
artificial to regard Rattan's peripheral units as subdevices of a
system or overall device under test. The plurality of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007