Appeal No. 1997-3146
Application 08/558,670
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 20 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, or
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
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);
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007