Appeal No. 95-3189 Page 6
Application No. 08/055,403
information known in the art without undue experimentation.
See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8
USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct.
1954 (1989); In re Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPQ
659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
Here, the examiner's analysis did not take into account
information known in the art, nor doe the examiner supply any
convincing evidence which would cause doubt about the accuracy
of appellant's disclosure. Accordingly, in our view, the
examiner has not carried his initial burden of setting forth
evidence or sound technical reasoning which indicates that any
person skilled in the art would not have been enabled by
appellant's specification to construct the claimed apparatus
and carry out the claimed process according to the guidelines
in appellant's specification.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
OTHER ISSUES
This application is remanded to the examiner to consider
the status of the proposed substitute specification and
amendments filed February 11, 1993 in the parent application
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007