Appeal No. 1996-4091
Application 08/167,394
points out that the PARTIAL SD ENCODER 40 of Figure 1 simply
shows a "black box," but Appellants do not provide any further
circuitry as to how the encoder 40 is able to convert the HD
macroblocks into the SD macroblocks.
In order to comply with the enablement provision of
35 U.S.C. § 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, 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
1691, 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 1982); In re Angstadt,
537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and In re
Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007