Interference No. 101,981
QADRI
Qadri raised the enablement issue in a motion timely filed
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633, which was denied, 37 C.F.R. § 1.655(b).
Qadri (QB 73-74) requests review of the denial of their
Preliminary Motion in view of 1) rebuttal evidence (QR 550-5)
they have presented to contradict Batlogg’s evidence from O’Bryan
(BaR 521-25) showing that if one followed the teachings of the
specification, they could obtain successful results, and 2) the
facts underlying the APJ’s basis for denying the motion have now
changed. Good cause has therefore been shown why additional
grounds for raising the enablement issue was not previously
raised.
Qadri has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the
evidence that Batlogg’s claim 16 is unpatentable for failing to
meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The burden
is on Qadri to establish that they are entitled to the relief
requested. Kubota v. Shibuya, 999 F.2d 517, 27 USPQ2d 1418 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
In their preliminary motion (paper no. 39, pp. 13-14) with
respect to this issue, Qadri set forth the following grounds:
Batlogg discloses an incorrect crystalline structure (i.e.,
tetragonal) for the material (taken from Beyers’ preliminary
57
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007