Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
The rejection of claims 20-24 under the enablement
requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In order to comply with the enablement provision of the
statute, the disclosure must adequately describe the claimed
invention so that the artisan could practice it without undue
experimentation. In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ
298, 305 (CCPA 1974); In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1404, 179
USPQ 286, 293 (CCPA 1973); and In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 774, 135
USPQ 311, 316 (CCPA 1962). If the Examiner has a reasonable basis
for questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure, the burden
shifts to Appellants to come forward with evidence to rebut this
challenge. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232
(CCPA 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 935 (1974); In re Brown, 477
F.2d 946, 950, 177 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1973); and In re Ghiron, 442
F.2d 985, 992, 169 USPQ 723, 728 (CCPA 1971). However, the burden
is initially upon the Examiner to establish a reasonable basis for
questioning the adequacy of the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz,
668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt,
537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and In re
Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
The Examiner has questioned the sufficiency of Appellants’
disclosure in describing the specific weighted integrations set
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007