Appeal No. 1998-1711 Page 8
Application No. 08/506,387
1982). In calling into question the enablement of the appellants' disclosure, the examiner has the initial
burden of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. Id.
Turning first to the coolant fluid expansion chamber, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in
the automotive art would have understood a coolant fluid expansion chamber to be a container, usually
plastic, which is connected via a compensator line to the radiator of the vehicle to hold overflow coolant
fluid which expands when heated. Thus, it is our opinion that the description of the coolant fluid
expansion chamber provided on page 8, lines 8-13, of the appellants' specification and the illustration
thereof in Figure 5 are sufficient to have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
appellants' invention to make and use the invention.
As for the pressurized fluid accumulator and hydraulic braking circuit, a person skilled in the
automotive art would likewise have been familiar with hydraulic braking systems which utilize
hydraulic fluid pressurized by a piston connected to a brake pedal and would have understood
the hydraulic fluid reservoir or accumulator of claims 5-7 to be, in either case, a container
capable of holding fluid and, in the case of a pressurized fluid accumulator as recited in claim
7, a container capable of being pressurized. Therefore, from our perspective, the examiner has
not met the initial burden of advancing acceptable reasoning why such a person would not have
been able, without undue experimentation, to make and use the invention recited in these claims
from the description thereof on page 8 of the specification and in Figures 7 and 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007