Appeal No. 97-2480
Application 08/296,122
determining compliance with the written description
requirement. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
In the present case, subsequent to the filing of the
application, appellants submitted claim 14 (Paper No. 11) with
the limitation that the weight of the encased product is
determined by a scale “and not computed by the operation of
said pump”. Appellants did not refer to any basis in the
underlying disclosure in support of the noted negative
limitation appearing in claim 14, and we can find none. It is
evident to us from appellants’ remarks (Paper No. 11) that
this negative limitation was imported into the present
disclosure responsive to and on the basis of the Meier
teaching. In light of the above, we conclude that the
specified negative limitation adds new matter into the
application since it clearly lacks a descriptive basis in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007