Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to
the applicant." Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d
at 1444.
The burden of establishing a prima facie case should consider
that it is extremely difficult to prove that there is no written
description support for claim limitations (i.e., to prove a
negative), especially where, as here, the disclosure includes 576
pages of specification and 66 pages of drawing figures, whereas
it is trivial for appellant, who drafted both the specification
and claims, to point out support for the elements, steps, and
interconnections recited in the claims.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 84-90) that the
examiner "is attempting to recast written description to require
more details than required to meet the enablement requirement"
(Id. at 84). Appellant quotes the PTO Guidelines for the written
description requirement that "each claim limitation must be
expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally
filed disclosure," emphasizing the phrase "each claim
limitation." Appellant goes on to explain that the requirement
is satisfied because the claim limitations are recited verbatim
or near verbatim in the disclosure. The claim limitations
referenced by appellant are the individual elements. However,
the claimed interconnections, established by the "in response to"
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007