Appeal No. 97-0777
Application 08/083,587
considering the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the
date of the application, would have enabled a person of such
skill to make and use the invention without undue
experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212
USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling into question the
enablement of the appellant's disclosure, the examiner has the
initial burden of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent
with enablement. Id.
According to the examiner, the appellants' disclosure is
non-enabling because it fails to adequately describe the
manner in which the discharge air temperature calculation
referred to in the claims is performed. The examiner's
position here rests solely on an alleged lack of detail in the
appellants' description of the mathematical operations
involved (see pages 11 and 12 in the main answer and pages 2
through 5 in the supplemental answer). 2
2This reasoning represents a shift from the rationale set
forth in the final rejection. There, the examiner considered
the disclosure to be non-enabling due to an alleged failure to
explain how the calculated air discharge temperature could be
used to control an automotive HVAC system. The examiner now
concedes that this concern was unwarranted (see page 11 in the
main answer and page 2 in the supplemental answer).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007