Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973); and In re Gay, 309 F.2d
769, 772, 135 USPQ 311, 315 (CCPA 1962). If the Examiner had a
reasonable basis for questioning the sufficiency of the
disclosure, the burden shifted to the Appellant to come forward
with evidence to rebut this challenge. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d
1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232-33 (CCPA 1973), cert. denied,
416 U.S. 935 (1974); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 950, 177 USPQ
691, 694 (CCPA 1973); and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 992,
169 USPQ 723, 728 (CCPA 1971). However, the burden was 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 Angstadt,
537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and In re
Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678, 185 USPQ 152, 154 (CCPA 1975).
We fail to find that the Examiner had a reasonable
basis for questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure.
Appellants’ claim 5 recites the first memory is operatively
connected to an updating means for updating, for storing and for
deleting vertical and horizontal coordinates of a geographical
location. We take notice that it is well within the skill of the
art for an artisan to provide a computer memory which is able to
update, store and delete information in memory at the time of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007