Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 7
Application No. 08/400,637
In addition, we are persuaded that the examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 27 and 29 as obvious over Gillig ‘230,
Gillig ‘042, Gillig ‘558, or Gillig ‘674. We are also
persuaded, however, that he erred in rejecting claim 28 as
obvious over Gillig ‘230, Gillig ‘042, Gillig ‘558, or Gillig
‘674. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. Our opinion addresses
the following rejections:
• written description rejection of claims 27-36
• enablement rejection of claims 27-30
• utility rejection of claims 27-30
• anticipation rejection of claims 31-36
• obviousness rejection of claims 27-29.
We commence with the written description rejection.
I. Written Description Rejection of Claims 27-36
We begin by noting the following principles. "To fulfill
the written description requirement, the patent specification
‘must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’"
Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479,
45 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Gosteli,
872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Fulfillment of the requirement is adjudged “as of the filing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007