Appeal No. 2001-1360
Application 09/290,056
the internally hollowed body as an annular collar defining
first and second halves assembled around the open neck so as to
sandwich an annular and downwardly facing flange portion of the
spray head. Claims 8 through 12 and 16, however, define other
collar/securing means embodiments which, as disclosed, are
mutually exclusive with respect to the embodiment recited in
claim 1. This inconsistency, which appears to stem from the
incorporation into claim 1 of the subject matter originally
recited in now canceled claim 13, renders the scope of claims 8
through 12 and 16 unclear.
Claims 8 through 12 and 16 also are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a
specification which fails to comply with the written
description requirement of this section of the statute.
The test for compliance with the written description
requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as
originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal
support in the specification for the claim language. In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007