Ex parte LEAHY et al. - Page 4




                     Appeal No. 1999-0944                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/890,252                                                                                                                                        


                     first paragraph, as being based upon a patent disclosure that                                                                                                     
                     fails to provide descriptive support for the invention as now                                                                                                     
                     claimed.2,3                                                                                                                                                       
                                The examiner’s rationale for the rejection is found on                                                                                                 
                     pages 2-3 of the final rejection and reads as follows:4                                                                                                           
                                The change to first and second in place of upper and                                                                                                   
                                lower . . . [is] considered new matter . . . . [T]he                                                                                                   
                                terms first and second are much broader than the                                                                                                       
                                terms upper and lower.  First and second can mean                                                                                                      
                                forward and rearward or left and right for example,                                                                                                    
                                which are clearly different than upper and lower and                                                                                                   
                                therefore not disclosed in the specification as                                                                                                        
                                originally filed.  . . . No where [sic] in the                                                                                                         
                                original specification were the parts ever disclosed                                                                                                   
                                as being anything other than upper and lower. . . .                                                                                                    
                                The examiner is correct that the claim language "first"                                                                                                

                                2In the final rejection, the examiner also objected to the                                                                                             
                     specification and drawing as containing new matter; however, this objection                                                                                       
                     has not been expressly carried forward in the examiner’s answer.  Had the                                                                                         
                     examiner maintained the objection, we would have been obligated to consider                                                                                       
                     the merits thereof.  See M.P.E.P. § 2163.06 (II) REVIEW OF NEW MATTER                                                                                             
                     OBJECTIONS AND/OR REJECTIONS.                                                                                                                                     
                                3Based on the designation of elements 66U and 66L as upper and lower                                                                                   
                     suction cups, and the depiction of the apparatus in Figure 3 as being                                                                                             
                     supported on a ground surface, it is apparent that Figure 3 is a partial                                                                                          
                     elevation of the apparatus.  Accordingly, the description of Figure 3 in the                                                                                      
                     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS section of the specification should be                                                                                          
                     amended to reflect that Figure 3 is a partial elevation view of Figure 2                                                                                          
                     rather than a partial plan view thereof.                                                                                                                          
                                4  Upon consideration of appellants’ arguments in the main brief, the                                                                                  
                     standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection is no longer based on                                                                                        
                     changing “onto” in patent claims 1-3 to “in combination with” in reissue                                                                                          
                     claims 1-3.  See page 3 of the examiner’s answer.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                          4                                                                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007