Appeal No. 96-3212
Application 07/826,699
Claims 1 to 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a nonenabling disclosure.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
As the case law in appellants’ brief correctly indicates,
the examiner bears the initial burden of setting forth a
reasonable basis as to why he or she believes the present
disclosure does not enable the artisan to make and use the
claimed invention, and that the correct measure is that this
disclosure must be done in such a manner as to enable this
artisan to do so without undue experimentation. After due
consideration of the present disclosure, including the drawings,
as well as the positions of the appellants and the examiner, we
conclude that the examiner has either failed to set forth an
adequate basis to question the adequacy of the disclosure or,
if so, the artisan would have been able to enable the claimed
invention without undue experimentation.
Pages 12 and 13 of the brief show a direct correspondence
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007