Appeal No. 2000-2294
Application No. 08/511,425
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the disclosure must
adequately describe the claimed invention so that the artisan
could practice it without undue experimentation. In re
Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 305 (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 Appellants 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 asserts (Answer, pages 5 and 6) a lack of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007