Appeal No. 1998-2195
Application No. 08/277,241
not ‘experimentation.’” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219
(CCPA 1976). The record does not establish that practicing the claimed method
would have required undue experimentation. Since it is the examiner’s burden to
show nonenablement and that burden has not been carried here, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Summary
We reverse the rejection for non-enablement because the examiner has
not shown, by convincing evidence or scientific reasoning, that those skilled in
the art would have had to carry out an undue amount of experimentation in order
to practice the claimed method.
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TONI R. SCHEINER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007