Appeal No. 1997-3161
Application No. 08/450,553
as set forth in claims 6-9, 43, 45, 46, and 51-57.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 6-9, 43, 45,
46, and 51-57 for lack of enablement 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, 303 (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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007