Appeal No. 2001-1344
Application No. 09/218,763
(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 Appellant’s
disclosure in enabling one of ordinary skill to produce an image
viewing device as claimed. In particular, the Examiner’s analysis
concludes (Answer, page 6) that “... the disclosed invention is
incapable of producing ‘an image comprising at least a 180° field
of view’ as claimed.”
At the outset, we note that, with respect to the embodiments
of Appellant’s invention in which light rays from an image enter
the image viewing device 40 directly through aperture 44, we find
the Examiner’s line of reasoning (Answer, pages 6-8) sufficient to
establish a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency of
Appellant’s disclosure. In particular, we find convincing the
Examiner’s assertion (id., at 6) that Appellant’s described image
viewing device could not produce a field of view of 180° since, at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007