Appeal No. 1997-2194 Page 9
Application No. 08/195,018
requirement of section 112 must be determined on a
case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039,
34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935
F.2d at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116).
The examiner determined (Paper No. 25, p. 2) that the
phrase "said desiccant chamber not communicating with the
environment external to the desiccant chamber" recited in each
of the independent claims on appeal lacks written description
support in the application as originally filed. The
appellants argue (see e.g., brief, pp. 10-11) that the above-
quoted phrase is supported by Figure 1 and the specification
(page 10, lines 12-13) that provide that the desiccant stopper
1 is closed to the outside by wall 2.
We have reviewed the originally filed disclosure and find
no express or implicit disclosure for the above-quoted phrase.
In fact, the original disclosure provides (page 10, lines 17-
23) that (1) the wall 2 can exchange humidity to a slight
extent between the environment and desiccant (page 10, lines
17-23); and (2) the separating element, which separates the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007