Appeal No. 1999-0810
Application No. 08/463,883
adequate written description of a method of microwave
sintering a non-LaMnO family ceramic [,and] [t]he
3
specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make
or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims
[sic]” (answer, page 3).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above
noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain this
rejection.
The examiner’s burden of proof in questioning the
enablement
of an inventor’s disclosure requires that the PTO advance
acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. In re
Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA
1982). In the case before us, the examiner has failed to
carry this burden.
We are mindful of the examiner’s point that the subject
specification disclosure identifies the LaMnO -family ceramic
3
specifically with respect to the appellant’s microwave
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007