Appeal No. 1999-0787
Application No. 08/813,953
used in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (answer, page 5). 4
We are not convinced by the examiner’s argument for the reasons
set forth above regarding that rejection.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of lack of
utility or of nonenablement. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first paragraph,
enablement requirement.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
written description requirement
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707
F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007