Appeal No. 1998-2914
Application 08/510,971
burden of producing reasons that substantiate a rejection
based on lack of enablement. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d
1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982) and In re
Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971).
Once this is done, the burden shifts to the appellants to
rebut this conclusion by presenting evidence to prove that the
disclosure is enabling. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179
USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974)
and In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370,
178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973).
Here, we have carefully reviewed the appellants'
disclosure in light of the examiner's contentions, but do not
find that the examiner has satisfied the initial burden of
producing a convincing line of reasoning which would
substantiate a rejection based on lack of enablement with
respect to the subject matter defined by the claims on appeal.
It is, of course, true that every detail has not been set
forth in the specification. However, as the court in In re
Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1226,
187 USPQ 664, 667 (CCPA 1975) set forth in quoting from Martin
v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972):
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007