Appeal No. 95-2165 Page 4
Application
Claims 1, 2, and 5 through 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Cohen.
OPINION
As an initial matter, appellants submit that claim 10 does
not stand or fall together with the first group of claims, 1
through 9 . Accordingly, we select claim 1, the sole4
independent claim from the first group of claims and claim 10
as representative of appellant’s invention and limit our
consideration to these claims. 37 C.F.R. 1.192(c)(5) (1993).
We have carefully considered the respective arguments of
examiner and appellant for patentability. We sustain the
rejection over the Cohen reference as to claims 1, 2 and 5
through 9. We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112,
paragraph one, and the rejections over Kilian or Orlowski, and
Lee and the rejection of claim 10 over Cohen.
The 112 paragraph one Rejection
In a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph one,
written description requirement, it is sufficient if the
originally filed disclosure would have conveyed to one of
ordinary skill in the art that appellants had possession of the
4Brief, page 7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007