Appeal No. 96-3234
Application 08/184,446
In order to comply with the enablement provision of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the disclosure must ade-
quately describe the claimed invention so that the artisan
could practice it without undue experimentation. In re
Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 303 (CCPA 1974);
In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1404, 179 USPQ 286, 293
(CCPA 1973); and In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 774, 135 USPQ 311,
316 (CCPA 1962). If the Examiner had a reasonable basis for
questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure, the burden
shifted to the Appellants 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, 992,
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007