Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
as set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20.
Accordingly, we reverse.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19,
and 20 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In order to comply with the enablement provision of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the disclosure must adequately
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, 305 (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 has a reasonable basis for
questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure, the burden
shifts to Appellant 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); 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 is initially upon
the Examiner to establish a reasonable basis for questioning
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007