Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
The examiner has stated that the terms “the heating ...
each reactor,” “predetermined time sequence,” and “equilibrium
controlled” in claim 1 are unclear (Answer, page 3).
It is well settled that the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of unpatentability, based on the prior art
or any other ground, rests with the examiner. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The only basis the examiner has presented to establish
the indefiniteness of “the heating ... each reactor” is that
it “is unclear what it is.” Answer, page 3. In our view, the
examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the
scope of the language in question, especially when read in
light of the specification (pages 23 through 28; see the
Brief, page 12).
The only basis presented by the examiner for the
indefiniteness of “predetermined time sequence” is that it is
“unclear in the basis for determining it.” Answer, page 3.
Again we determine that the examiner has not met the initial
burden, especially in light of the specification disclosure
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007