Appeal No. 95-2221
Application No. 07/994,072
support in the original disclosure for the concept of what is
later claimed. In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ
331, 336 (CCPA 1973).
Here, we find the concept that appellants' process does
not involve "molding under pressure, heat setting, or
calendaring" is reasonably conveyed from the specification as
originally filed. Hence, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, "written description requirement."
We now direct our attention to the prior art rejections
before us. Initially we note that the examiner contends that
rejections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) only apply in the event
that "the absence of pressure" is held to be "new matter".
Implicit in the examiner's position regarding these rejections
is that the negative claim limitation, the subject of the
examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
descriptive support rejection, can be ignored in applying the
prior art. This approach is untenable as explained in In re
Miller 441 F.2d 689, 692, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971) and In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). As stated
by the court in Wilson, 424 F.2d at 1385, 165 USPQ at 496,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007