Appeal No. 1999-0527
Application No. 08/801,837
500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974). The
experimentation required, in addition to not being undue, must
not require ingenuity beyond that expected of one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190
USPQ 214, 218 (CCPA 1976). It is also well settled that an
examiner has the initial burden of producing reasons that
substantiate a rejection based on lack of enablement. See In re
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982)
and In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA
1971). Once this is done, the burden shifts to the appellant to
rebut this conclusion by presenting evidence to prove that the
disclosure is enabling. See In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392,
179 USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974)
and In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370, 178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA
1973).
Having fully reviewed the entirety of appellants’ disclosure
as filed, i.e., the content of the specification and claims 1
through 9, and the showing in Figures 1 through 3, 3a, 4, and 5,
we are in basic agreement with the examiner’s reasoning to the
effect that the disclosure raises substantial questions
concerning enablement. More specifically, we do not perceive
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007