Appeal No. 1997-1081 Page 5
Application No. 08/111,922
inconsistent with enablement. This the examiner has not done.
While the appellants' disclosure fails to specify the actual
construction of various elements (e.g., column hoist running
tool, riser column, riser joint, riser bolt, re-entry mandrel,
riser box, recovery tool, etc.) it is our opinion that this
alone is not a sufficient basis, in this case, to meet the
examiner's burden of proof. This is especially true in view
of the fact that the record establishes that such elements
were all known as of the date of the appellants'
application. In this regard, the examiner should note MPEP5,6
§ 2164.05(a) (7th Ed., July 1998) which provides that the
specification need not disclose what is well-known to those
skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is
well-known to those skilled and already available to the
public. Thus, we conclude that appellants' disclosure would
5See, for example, the article entitled "Deepwater Subsea
Completion: State of the Art and Future Trends" (1993)
submitted by the appellants on May 1, 1995 as an attachment to
the amendment under 37 CFR § 1.115 (Paper No. 12).
6See also the appellants' argument set forth on pages 6-9
of the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007