Appeal No. 2001-2021
Application No. 09/206,393
considering the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the
date of the appellant's application, would have enabled a
person of such skill to make and use the appellants’ invention
without undue experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d
1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling into
question the enablement of the appellant's disclosure, the
examiner has the initial burden of advancing acceptable
reasoning inconsistent with enablement. Id.
Although the appellants’ disclosure does not go into
specific detail as to how the joy sticks recited in the
appealed claims function to control the movement of the motor
vehicle, the examiner has not cogently explained why this lack
of detail would have prevented a person of ordinary skill in
the art from making and using the claimed vehicle control
arrangement without undue experimentation. Indeed, U.S.
Patent No. 5,086,870 to Bolduc which is cited in the
explanation of the rejection and U.S. Patent Nos. 5,128,671 to
Thomas, Jr. and 5,249,272 to Stern which are discussed in and
appended to the appellants’ brief ostensibly demonstrate that
the joy stick limitations in the claims relate to relatively
simple and straightforward elements that, in and of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007