Appeal No. 1999-2630
Application 08/341,464
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
The examiner’s explanation (see pages 5, 6 and 8 in the
answer) indicates that this rejection rests on an alleged
failure of the appellants’ specification to comply with the
written description requirement with respect to the limitations
in independent claim 6 requiring the user joint to be openable,
refastenable and reopenable.
The test for compliance with the written description
requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as
originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventor 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).
As pointed out by the appellants (see page 11 in the main
brief), claim 10 in the application as originally filed recited
a diaper fastener formed of a web construction of linerless
“reclosable” diaper fastener stock. Read in light of the
underlying specification, the term “reclosable” clearly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007