Appeal No. 1998-3049
Application No. 08/463,558
the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement.
(citations omitted)
Although the application as originally filed does not describe the
phrase in question in ipsis verbus, we agree with appellants that
it reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventors had
possession of such subject matter for the reasons set forth at
pages 5 through 8 of the Brief. Thus, we reverse the examiner’s
§ 112 rejection of claims 18 through 23, 25 through 30 and 32
through 41.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 18 through 21, 23, 25 through 28, 30 and 32 through 41
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Sundman, Phillips and either Soteland or
the admitted prior art. The same claims are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over, in addition to the above-
mentioned references, Meredith. Claims 22 and 29 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Meredith, Sundman, Phillips, either Soteland or the admitted
prior art and either Kimura or Coste.
The presently claimed subject matter is related to the subject
matter previously considered in Appeal No. 94-3492 (Application
07/808,986). The presently claimed subject matter, however,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007