Appeal No. 96-3512
Application 08/235,623
answer. The arguments of the appellants and examiner in support
of their respective positions may be found on pages 4-9 of the
amended brief and pages 6 and 7 of the answer.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of the
terminology in the claims. In line 2 of claim 2, line 2 of claim
8, line 3 of claim 11 and line 3 of claim 17, we interpret
“circular” to be -- circular in cross-section --.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the examiner is of the opinion
that there is no descriptive support in the original disclosure
for the limitation that the “member” is self-supported on or
against the wall of the reaction chamber “without other means of
support” as set forth in independent claims 1, 10 and 19. In
support of this position the examiner references lines 1-3 of
page 9 of the specification and urges that “the drawings are not
refined enough for full reliance thereupon” (see answer, page 6).
We do not agree with the examiner’s position. The
description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
1l2 is separate from the enablement requirement of that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007