Appeal No. 2001-1150 Page 6
Application No. 09/767,764
in the treatment of humans.”). Thus, the examiner has not provided “acceptable
evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent” with the specification that one of
skill in the art would not be able to practice the claimed invention, and therefore
has not met the initial burden of demonstrating nonenablement.
CONCLUSION
Because the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie rejection that
the specification fails to set forth an enabling disclosure, it is reversed.
REVERSED
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Toni R. Scheiner ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) )INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LG/dym
Jerry K. Mueller
Mueller and Smith
7700 Rivers Edge Drive
Columbus OH 43235
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007