Appeal No. 98-0455
Application 08/467,247
USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224,
169 USPQ 367, 370 (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 parts loading system in appellants’
drawings, and the paucity of details concerning the mechanism
by which the flip doors (92) and frame members (91) are
pivoted in the manner set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the
specification, we nonetheless do not find that this issue is
such as to give rise to non-enablement when the disclosure as
a whole is viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary
skill in the art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007