Appeal No. 2003-2168
Application No. 09/996,010
every limitation of the invention recited in appealed claim 1.
Rather, the appellants’ only argument on appeal is that the
applied prior art references are nonenabling. (Appeal brief,
pages 3-6.) We cannot agree.
The burden of proving that an anticipating reference is
nonenabling rests on the applicants. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675,
681, 207 USPQ 107, 111 (CCPA 1980).
In this case, the appellants have not shouldered, much less
carried their burden of proving nonenablement. Other than
generalities or unsupported allegations, the appellants proffer
no objective evidence (e.g., declaration evidence establishing
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been subjected
to undue experimentation) to substantiate their position. For
example, in attacking JP 4-46840 (appeal brief, pages 4-5), the
appellants point out that the reference teaches winding a tape
around an elliptical mandrel at a winding angle of 14.5º but
that the term “winding ang[le]” is not defined. The appellants
then urge that the “only logical conclusion is that the angle is
formed between the equatorial plane of the bag and the direction
of the tape being wound thereon” and that “[w]inding tape around
a mandrel in this manner produces a thick nodule in the center
of the face thereof, and does not spread the tape evenly over
the face.” (Id. at page 5.) A similar type of argument,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007