Appeal No. 96-1246
Applicaton No. 08/205,812
Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 565, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974);
In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1405-06, 179 USPQ 286, 294
(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 (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, 991, 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, 502, 190 USPQ 214, 218
(CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ
152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
The Examiner argues that the specification fails to
disclose any structure of a device in a meaningful degree of
specificity to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007