Appeal No. 1997-3211
Application No. 08/457,789
conception and/or reduction to practice. While the record in
this case establishes that Appellants have in fact supplied a
clear showing of such correspondence (Reply Brief, page 6), we
find the Examiner’s assertion to be misplaced. Appellants’
presentation of facts relating to a showing of reduction to
practice of the claimed invention shifts the burden to the
Examiner to establish a lack of correspondence between the
claimed elements and the description in the supplied Exhibit
A. In our view, the Examiner’s broad unsupported allegation
of lack of correspondence falls well short of meeting this
burden.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007