Appeal No. 1997-3670
Application No. 08/541,799
specification which “as originally filed, does not provide support for the invention as is now
claimed.” (answer, page 3) In other words, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is based on the written description portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claims 1-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by any one of
Mendenhall, Barrett or Lazarus.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is the examiner’s position that
the original disclosure has no support for the now claimed “means for periodically
storing...and means for determining...the input and output lists” and “digitally programming
a compensator...for implementing a difference equation whereby sequential outputs...to
permit control of the foundation member.” [answer, page 3].
In order to determine compliance with the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the inquiry to be made pertains to whether the disclosure
(specification, drawings, claims) as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007