Appeal No. 95-3807
Application 08/088,696
Appellant to come forward with evidence to rebut this challenge. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385,
1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232 (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, 212 USPQ 561 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219
(CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677-78, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
On page 7, line 20, through page 8, line 6, and page 9, lines 1-32, of the specification,
Appellant discloses a switch for routing communications to a plurality of CPE devices by using
electronic paging. Furthermore, we note that it is well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill
in the art to design the switch to page each of a plurality of CPE devices in a predetermined
sequence such as a sequence in the order of the communication addresses of the CPE devices.
Thus, we find that Appellant's disclosure meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, and the Examiner has not established a reasonable basis for questioning the
sufficiency of the disclosure. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to provide an enabling disclosure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007