Appeal No. 97-1437
Application 08/356,227
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982);
In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA
1971). Once this is done, the burden shifts to the appellant to
rebut this conclusion by presenting evidence to prove that the
disclosure in the specification is enabling. See In re Doyle,
482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA 1973), cert.
denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974); In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370,
178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973).
In the case before us, we believe the examiner has not
met his burden of advancing acceptable reasons inconsistent with
enablement. While we appreciate the examiner's discomfiture over
the somewhat schematic illustration of the invention in
appellant's drawings, and the paucity of details concerning the
various gearing connections and the connections for the drive
motors (26) of the individual printing units, we nonetheless do
not find that these issues individually or collectively rise to
the level of non-enablement.
In this regard, it is our opinion that the level of
skill in this art (i.e, the multi-color, web-fed, rotary printing
press art) is sufficiently high that the ordinarily skilled
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007