Appeal No. 1999-0956
Application No. 08/584,084
therewith is whether the disclosure of the application as
originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventors 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.
1983). Thus, in both instances, the focus is on the claimed
invention.
The examiner’s first reason for rejecting the claims applies
to claims 28-47. The examiner considers that
[t]he specification defines and provides an enabling
disclosure for a sheet folded along first and second
respective fold lines to constitute . . . a package
while the claims merely define a sheet folded along
a single first fold line. [Answer, page 3.]
This reason clearly does not apply to independent claim 39,
and the claims that depend therefrom, because claim 39 expressly
sets forth means for folding a carrier along first and second
fold lines. As to independent claim 28, while we appreciate that
this claim does not include means for folding the carrier form
about a second fold line, the examiner has not established that
folding about a second fold line has been stated by appellants as
being critical or essential to the practice of the invention. In
this regard, we note that the “principal object” of the invention
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007