Appeal No. 2004-2235
Application No. 09/195,005
the initial burden of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent
with enablement. Id.
The explanation of the rejection in the answer indicates
that the examiner considers the appellant’s disclosure to be non-
enabling in three basic respects.
First, the examiner refers to a 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) in the
first appeal and submits (1) that the appellant’s disclosure is
inadequate as to the recitation in claim 7 of the “carrier
cages,” “coupling elements,” “first guide roller” and “second
guide roller,” and (2) that the problems discussed by this Board
in the last five lines on page 5 of the decision in the first
appeal have not been overcome. This passage from the earlier
decision reads as follows:
the specification fails to describe how the wagons are
removably connected to and disconnected from the
circulating chain. Nor does it describe a mechanism
for moving the wagons along the removal guide track or
along the insertion drive track, which would appear to
be necessary for the operation of the claimed system,
or how the wagons are removably connected to these
tracks.
Second, the examiner contends that the wagons will be
crushed as they move from the insertion track to the oval track
because “[t]here is no disclosure of any control system to only
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007