Ex parte ERSKINE et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-0550                                                          
          Application 07/960,148                                                      

          561, 563 (CCPA 1982).  Once this is done, the burden shifts to              
          the appellants to rebut the conclusion of the examiner regarding            
          enablement by presenting evidence to prove that the disclosure is           
          enabling. Id. at 1561, 27 USPQ2d at 1513; In re Eynde, 480                  
          F.2d 1364, 1370, 178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973); In re Doyle, 482            
          F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA 1973), cert. denied, sub           
          nom.  Doyle v. Comm'r of Patents, 416 U.S. 935 (1974).                      
          Additionally, as the court in In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1226,           
          187 USPQ 664, 667 (CCPA 1975) stated:                                       
                    [t]o satisfy  112, the specification disclosure must             
                    be sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary                
                    skill in the art to make the invention without undue              
                    experimentation, although the need for a minimum amount           
                    of experimentation is not fatal....  Enablement is the            
                    criterion, and every detail need not be set forth in              
                    the written specification if the skill in the art is              
                    such that the disclosure enables one to make the                  
                    invention.                                                        
          The determination of what constitutes undue experimentation in a            
          given case requires the application of a standard of                        
          reasonableness, having regard for the nature of the invention and           
          the state of the art.  See, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736, 8               
          USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  The provisions of 35 U.S.C.            
           112, first paragraph, do not require that the specification               
          contain what is well known to those skilled in the art.                     
          Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,             


                                         -4-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007