Appeal No. 1997-3441
Application No. 08/614,920
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 for questioning the adequacy of the disclosure. In re
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA
1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219
(CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ
152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
The Examiner has questioned (Answer, pages 3 and 6) the
sufficiency of Appellants’ disclosure in describing the various
fabricating steps for producing the claimed silicon carbide
(SiC) integrated circuit. In the Examiner’s view, although all
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007