Appeal No. 2001-1312
Application No. 08/989,701
disclosure must adequately describe the claimed invention so that
the artisan could practice it without undue experimentation. In
re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 303 (CCPA 1974);
In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1404, 179 USPQ 286, 293 (CCPA
1973); and In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 774, 135 USPQ 311, 316 (CCPA
1962). If the Examiner has a reasonable basis for questioning
the sufficiency of the disclosure, the burden shifts to
Appellants to come forward with evidence to rebut this challenge.
In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232 (CCPA 1973),
cert. denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946,
950, 177 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1973); and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d
985, 992, 169 USPQ 723, 728 (CCPA 1971). However, the burden is
initially upon the Examiner to establish a reasonable basis for
questioning the adequacy of the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz,
668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re
Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and
In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA
1975).
The Examiner has questioned the sufficiency of Appellants’
disclosure in describing the necessary structure “ . . . for
carrying out the detailed relationships necessary to carry out
the invention, i.e., the synthesis of music and speech.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007