Appeal No. 1996-3042
Application 08/293,153
using the invention in terms which correspond in
scope to those used in describing and defining the
subject matter sought to be patented must be taken
as in compliance with the enabling requirement of
the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason
to doubt the objective truth of the statements
contained therein which must be relied on for
enabling support. . . .
. . . .
. . . it is incumbent upon the Patent Office,
whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to
explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any
statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up
assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or
reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested
statement. Otherwise, there would be no need for
the applicant to go to the trouble and expense of
supporting his presumptively accurate disclosure.
The examiner argues that he fails to see how the air in
the device shown in figure 2 of appellants’ specification can
make two passes over the lights (answer, pages 3 and 7). The
examiner questions how the air can deflect off of baffle 184
in appellants’ figure 2 and pass back in the opposite
direction as shown in that figure (answer, page 7). The
examiner states that he considers the flow path shown in
appendix B of his answer, wherein the air makes one pass over
each light and there is some turbulence next to baffles 182
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007