Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d
1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the present case, the examiner asserts that there is no
basis in the original specification to support the now claimed
recitation of “at least one lubricant”, which is indicated to
mean one or more lubricants (answer, page 3). In the brief
(page 8), appellant argues that other lubricants besides the
disclosed zinc stearate can be used and refers to the British
patent to Knight applied by the examiner in prior art rejections
also before us.
Unlike appellant, we share the examiner’s point of view
(answer, page 6) that there is no support in the original
disclosure for more than one lubricant, i.e., two or more
lubricants, being combined with iron powder or powdered iron
particles, irrespective of whether one of them is zinc stearate
or otherwise. The original specification (pages 4, 5, and 7)
only conveys that a lubricant is to be mixed with powdered iron,
and appellant does not point to any part of the original
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007