Appeal No. 95-0833
Application 08/161,978
originally filed claims contains subject matter relating to the
disputed language set forth above. As such, we must look to the
originally filed specification to reach a proper determination of
this issue. We also characterize the drawings as they were
originally filed, and not renumbered in accordance with the
extensive file history in this application. Further, we note
that the examiner’s reasoning for lack of “support” implicitly
refers to the written description portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. In re Higbee, 527 F.2d 1405, 1406, 188 USPQ
488, 489 (CCPA 1976).
The initial portion of claim 10's clause b reproduced
earlier is that the second indicator opening extend around a
corner from the front to the side of the data tape cartridge.
The only embodiment among the seven figures originally presented
in this application which would appear to correspond to this
language is that embodiment shown in Fig. 6. Our study of the
drawings as filed, as well as the written description portion of
the specification as filed, leads us to conclude that appellants’
arguments with respect to the Fig. 4 embodiment are misplaced
since only Fig. 6 can be construed in any manner to have an
opening which extends around the corner from the front to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007