Appeal No. 1999-0465 Application No. 08/351,548 exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejection. OPINION This rejection cannot be sustained. It is well settled that the burden of proof lies upon the Patent and Trademark Office in calling into question enablement of an applicant’s disclosure. This burden requires that the Patent and Trademark Office advance acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. Upon the advancement of acceptable reasoning, the burden then shifts to the applicant to show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have practiced the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982). In the case at bar, it is clear that the examiner has not carried his initial burden of proof. In explaining his rationale for making the rejection before us, the examiner states that he “suspected that the claims cover structures substantially or radically different from those enabled” and 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007