Appeal No. 2006-0028
Application No. 10/435,858
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
The examiner’s explanation indicates that this rejection is
predicated on an alleged failure of the appellant’s specification
to comply with the enablement requirement of § 112, ¶ 1. Hence,
the dispositive issue is whether the appellant’s disclosure,
considering the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date
of the application, would have enabled a person of such skill to
make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA
1982). In calling into question the enablement of the appellant's
disclosure, the examiner has the initial burden of advancing
acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. Id.
The examiner considers the appellant’s disclosure to be non-
enabling because
[i]t is unclear from the specification and claims how
exactly the applicant's vehicle is equipped to haul
dangerous goods. It is also unclear what structure the
vehicle has and what parts are needed in the vehicle.
Due to the breadth of the claim at hand the examiner is
unable to determine exactly how the items being carried
are secured and what the items are that are being
secured. Also it is unclear from the applicant's
specification what exactly the law says. Because laws
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007