Appeal No. 2001-2204
Application No. 09/155,413
on lack of enablement. See In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229,
1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982) and See In re Marzocchi,
439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). Once this is
done, the burden shifts to an appellant to rebut this conclusion
by presenting evidence to prove that the disclosure is enabling.
See In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA
1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974) and In re Eynde,
480 F.2d 1364, 1370, 178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973).
We fully comprehend the examiner's viewpoint of the
enablement issue as clearly articulated in the answer (pages 2
through 8). Akin to the examiner's perception, a reading of
appellant's underlying specification reveals to us a disclosure
that for the most part leaves it to those practicing the art the
task of bringing into being the apparatus for practicing the
invention. The issue, of course, is whether appellant's
aforementioned underlying teaching would have enabled one skilled
in the art to make and use the invention without undue
experimentation. Taking into account the totality of the
particular evidence and information before us, it is our opinion
that the examiner has not produced reasons that substantiate a
rejection based on lack of enablement. In other words, while
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007