Appeal No. 2001-2686
Application Re08/932,718
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree that the
examiner has met his initial burden of advancing appropriate
reasoning to support the conclusion that appellants’
disclosure is non-enabling. In any case, appellants’
rebuttal evidence comprised of the prior art patents cited
on page 6 of the main brief confirms that connections other
than a splined connection are enabling. Upon consideration
of the Wands factors outlined supra, we must reverse the
examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 through 12 based on
the lack of compliance with the enablement requirement in
the first paragraph of § 112.
REVERSED
Harrison E. McCandlish, Senior)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Neal E. Abrams )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
John P. McQuade )
Administrative Patent Judge )
HMcC/cam
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007