Appeal No. 2001-2188
Application No. 09/085,300
As to the Examiner’s assertion of lack of enablement of
Appellant’s disclosure, we note that, in order to comply with the
enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
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 Appellant
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 (Answer, page 5) the sufficiency
of Appellant’s disclosure in that “ . . . the originally filed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007