Appeal No. 1998-2065
Application 08/713,788
USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling into question the
enablement of the appellant's disclosure, the examiner has the
initial burden of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent
with enablement. Id.
Although the appellants’ disclosure of a loop element
having an elastic portion and a plastic portion is somewhat
lacking in detail, it is not apparent, nor has the examiner
cogently explained, why such disclosure would not have enabled
a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use without
undue experimentation a garbage bag having this relatively
simple and straightforward structure. Thus, on the record
before us, the appellants’ disclosure of a loop element having
elastic and plastic portions does not pose an enablement
problem.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
6, 7 and 9 through 16.
As for the additional 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of claims 13 through 16, the examiner’s
characterization of the “loop extension” limitation in claim
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007