Appeal No. 1995-3522
Application No. 07/912,973
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, even if we agreed with all of the examiner's
criticisms of the specification (which we do not for reasons
as generally presented in the appellants' brief and reply
brief), the examiner’s analysis would fall short of presenting
a prima facie case of a non-enabling disclosure since the
examiner did not supply any convincing evidence or reasoning
which would cause
doubt about the accuracy of appellants’ disclosure so as to
support a legal conclusion that undue experimentation is
required to practice the invention as claimed. See In re
Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736-37, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Moreover, we observe that the examiner has not
convincingly explained how the criticisms and questions
regarding the specification that the examiner has set forth in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007