Appeal No. 2004-1332
Application No. 10/010,691
the record before us, the Appellant has proffered no evidence
whatsoever in support of his assertion that the Barrett disclosure
is not enabling. For this reason alone, the Appellant has failed
to carry his burden of proving that Barrett’s presumptively valid
patent is in fact nonenabling.
In addition, the Appellant has erroneously categorized
Barrett’s column 16 disclosure as “a mere ‘germ’ of an idea”
(brief, page 4). In fact, the Barrett patent contains disclosure
beyond column 16 concerning the programming of his controller or
central processing unit for a priority of operation. For example,
lines 35-53 in column 30 and particularly the paragraph bridging
columns 30 and 31 include specific disclosure regarding the use of
software for programming patentee’s central processing unit so that
the functions performed thereby are based on priorities, conditions
and limitations imposed by the software.
Finally, the Appellant’s nonenablement position is undermined
by the fact that his own specification disclosure provides even
less teaching than Barrett vis-à-vis effectuating a controller
based on statistical analysis. In particular, the most detailed
teaching in the subject specification regarding this statistical
analysis feature appears on page 7, and this teaching merely states
that statistical analysis is performed without specifying any
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007