Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex parte KAWAMURA et al. - Page 5
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte KAWAMURA et al. - Page 5
Appeal No. 1999-2240
Application 08/909,349
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br9).
Claim 1 is analyzed as representative for each ground of
rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, lack of written
description
The rejection is based on the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, not the
enablement requirement as stated by Appellants (Br11: RBr2).
The written description rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is used to reject when a claim is
amended to recite elements thought to be without support in
the original disclosure. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212,
1214-15, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). "Satisfaction of
the description requirement insures that subject matter
presented in the form of a claim subsequent to the filing
date of the application was sufficiently disclosed at the
time of filing so that the prima facie date of invention can
fairly be held to be the filing date of the application."
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562,
- 5 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
