Appeal No. 95-0999
Application 07/925,347
disclosure of either Gillis or Cassidy. See In re Schaumann,
572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978)(prior art
preferred genus which disclosed limited species, inclusive of
claimed species, constituted description
of the claimed species within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
102(b));
In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA
1962) (prior art genus containing only 20 compounds inherently
anticipated a claimed species within the genus because “one
skilled in [the] art would . . . envisage each member” of the
genus). Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the
claimed subject matter is fully described by either Gillis or
Cassidy within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
In reaching this conclusion, we note appellants’ argument
that both Gillis and Cassidy are directed to “systems for
preparing polymers by reaction injection molding processes
(emphasis our own).” See Brief, page 7. However, we also
note that the claimed subject matter is directed to a system,
rather than to a composition. The claimed system comprises
two individually packaged known components for the purpose of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007