Appeal No. 96-2274
Application No. 08/291,354
§ 112, first paragraph, the disclosure must adequately
describe the claimed invention so that the artisan could
practice it without undue experimentation. In re Scarbrough,
500 F.2d 560, 565, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974); In re
Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1405-06, 179 USPQ 286, 294 (CCPA
1973); and In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 772, 135 USPQ 311, 315
(CCPA 1962). If the Examiner had a reasonable basis for
questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure, the burden
shifted to the Appellant to come forward with evidence to
rebut this challenge. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179
USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974);
In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 950, 177 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1973);
and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 991, 169 USPQ 723, 728 (CCPA
1971). However, the burden was initially upon the Examiner to
establish a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of
the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212
USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502,
190 USPQ 214, 218 (CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d
676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007