Appeal No. 95-3189 Page 4
Application No. 08/055,403
Because the examiner has failed to carry his initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of non-enablement
based on the present record, the above-noted rejection cannot
be sustained.
The examiner attacks the sufficiency of appellant's
specification urging, for example, that the specification is
incomplete; does not adequately describe how "the elements are
integrated into a whole" (answer, page 3); and does not teach
how a program controller is integrated (answer, page 4) and
how a capillary cartridge is constructed to be portable,
removable, and interchangeable (answer, page 5). Appellant
argues that the specification and drawings do provide an3
adequate and enabling written description of the claimed
method and apparatus concerning an automated capillary
3While appellant refers to a substitute specification in
the brief, we note that our review of the application file
does not clearly indicate that the examiner has considered
appellant's preliminary amendment of April 29, 1993 requesting
entry of a previously filed non-entered amendment after final
that included a substitute specification that was filed
February 11, 1993 in parent application No. 07/542,673. We
note that our consideration of the propriety of the enablement
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is based on
the original disclosure of this continuation application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007