Appeal No. 1998-3301 Page 11
Application No. 08/784,361
basis. See In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367,
369 (CCPA 1971). As stated by the court,
it is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a
rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts
the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting
disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with
acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent
with the contested statement. Otherwise, there would be
no need for the applicant to go to the trouble and
expense of supporting his presumptively accurate
disclosure.
In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 224, 169 USPQ at 370.
Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the appellant's
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art
as of the date of the appellant's application, would have
enabled a person of such skill to make and use the appellant's
invention without undue experimentation. The threshold step
in resolving this issue as set forth supra is to determine
whether the examiner has met his burden of proof by advancing
acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. Clearly,
the examiner has not met this burden.
The appellant's disclosure does not explicitly show or
describe the locking system for the doors or the motorized
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007