Appeal No. 1997-3146
Application 08/558,670
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 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).
We fail to find that the Examiner had a reasonable
basis for questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure. In
particular, the Examiner has not shown that the artisan would
not have been able to practice the claimed invention without
undue experimentation.
On pages 3 through 5 of the Examiner's answer, the
Examiner argues that the specification is nonenabling because
the details of the control means 22 and the setting means 24
are not set forth. However, the Examiner does not provide a
reasonable basis for showing that the artisan would not have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007