Appeal No. 2006-0730 Page 8
Application No. 10/164,863
appellants’ claimed invention could not be practiced without undue
experimentation based on appellants’ disclosure.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the examiner failed to meet his burden
of setting forth a prima facie case of lack of enablement. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection based on the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16 under the written
description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16 under the enablement
provision 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
REVERSED
)
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Donald E. Adams ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007