Appeal No. 95-2730
Application No. 08/169959
practice it without undue experimentation. In re Scarbrough,
500 F.2d 560, 566,
182 USPQ 298, 303 (CCPA 1974); In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d
1395, 1407, 179 USPQ 286, 295 (CCPA 1973); In re Gay, 309 F.2d
769, 774, 135 USPQ 311, 316 (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 (CCPA 1973); In re
Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 950, 177 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1973); 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, supra; In re Angstadt,
537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); In re
Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677-78, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA
1975).
The examiner contends that the instant claimed invention
is nonenabling because there is no block diagram and/or
circuitry disclosing how the transmitter/receiver pair is
configured in a manner to result in the emission of a signal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007