Appeal No. 2001-2097
Application No. 09/052,849
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 structure of the components which
comprise the clock divider circuit of the claimed invention.
According to the Examiner (Answer, page 3), “... the invention is
a complex structure and its operation is not apparent from the
disclosure.”
After careful review of the arguments of record, however, we
are in agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the
Brief. As asserted by Appellants (Brief, page 7), the Examiner,
aside from a general allegation of insufficiency, has never
-4–4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007