Appeal No. 1997-2099
Application No. 08/233,468
Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1172, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). However, the written
description requirement does not require the applicant to describe exactly the subject
matter claimed in the original application. Instead, the description must clearly allow
persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the applicants invented what is
claimed. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
The Examiner has rejected claim 11 because he finds that the original
specification does not support the limitation “an absorber operating at a working
o o
temperature range of from about 190 F to about 240 F.”
As pointed out by the Appellant on page 8 of the principal brief, the specification
discloses the absorber of the high-temperature circuit of a dual loop absorption
o o
refrigeration system operates at temperature of about 190 F to about 240 F. (Brief, pg.
8; specification, pg. 2). The Examiner, in the answer, does not address the portion of
the specification cited by the Appellant. According to the specification, page 1, the
absorbent composition are used in the high temperature circuit of a dual circuit triple
effect heat exchange apparatus. The specification
describes the disadvantages of the prior art and absorbent composition which are
capable of over coming the disclosed disadvantages. We determine, the Examiner has
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007