Appeal No. 95-2136
Application 07/980,156
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellants that the
examiner’s rejection is without merit. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed by appellants in their Brief.
The examiner provides the following reasoning as the basis
for his rejection at page 4 of the Answer:
It is pointed out that the instant claims are
directed of [sic, to] perfumes and flavors without
qualification, and the instant specification does not
enable that which is claimed by adequately disclosing
the actual scope by way of specific examples or
established principle. As set forth above and as set
forth in the first office action, any and all perfumes
and flavors are not enabled such as coffee flavors, tea
flavors, vanilla flavors, vanillin, and so forth.
As maintained by appellants, it is well settled that the
examiner has the initial burden of establishing lack of
enablement by compelling reasoning or objective evidence. In re
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982);
In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677-78, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA
1975). In the present case, the examiner has summarily
concluded, without the requisite factual support, that not all
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007