Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
The burden initially falls upon the Examiner to
establish a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of
the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 212 USPQ
561 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214
(CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 185 USPQ 152
(CCPA 1975). In the present case, the entirety of the
examiner’s explanation is contained in the following sentence:
Appellant failed to adequately
teach how to make instruction issuing
unit and means for handling an
interrupt, and it would require a
person of ordinary skill in the art
undue experimentation to
develop such means.
We find this insufficient to establish a reasonable
basis for questioning the adequacy of the disclosure. Because
the examiner has not stated a prima facie case of non-
enablement, we will not sustain this rejection. Moreover, the
examiner did not respond to the reply brief’s arguments
against this new ground of rejection.
Obviousness
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Acosta in view of Inagami.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007