Appeal No. 95-2746
Application 07/887,394
obviously generic to a considerable number of compounds each
of which share the requisite characteristics of having the
properties of a base and being a gas. It is incumbent upon
the examiner to explain why he doubts the truth or accuracy of
any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up
assertions of his own with acceptable evidence or reasoning
which is inconsistent with the contested statement. In re
Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367,
370 (CCPA 1971). The examiner has failed to meet the
requisite burden of proof to sustain this rejection.
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
15-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. As we explained supra, the requisite
characteristics of the term, "basic gas," is well known.
Appellants are defining their gas in terms of one of its
properties. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use
of such a technique in drafting patent claims. In re
Swinehart,
439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). Hence, the
rejection is not sustainable.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15-17 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007