Appeal No. 2004-0837
Application No. 09/778,481
. . .
The various that are considered preferably are
weighted to give appropriate emphasis to the factors
that contribute more significantly to belt fatigue.
For example, bends over smaller diameter sheaves and
shorter distances between sheaves provides a more
significant impact than loading. Similarly, reverse
bends provide a higher impact than simple bends.
Another example is that a reverse bend over a fixed
sheave provides more of an impact than a reverse bend
over a moving sheave. Given this description, those
skilled in the art will be able to determine what
factors to account for in a particular situation.
Additionally, those skilled in the art who have the
benefit of this description will be able to assign
appropriate significance or weighting to the various
factors for making a proper inspection device placement
determination.
Since the appellants’ specification contains a written
description of the manner of making and using the claimed
elevator system and elevator belt inspecting method in terms
corresponding in scope with those of the claims on appeal,
compliance with the enablement requirement is presumed.
Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 223-24, 169 USPQ at 369-70.
It is the examiner’s burden to present adequate bases for
doubting the objective truth of the appellants’ statements in the
specification, i.e., to provide scientific reasoning and/or
evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been able to make and use the full scope of the subject
matter claimed based on the written description of the invention
in the specification, without undue experimentation. Id. On
this record, however, the examiner has not carried this burden.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007