Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
rejections "appear to be objections to the form and style of the
disclosure" rather than the content. Appellant has ignored the
examiner's clear explanation on pages 8-16 of the Answer of how
the disclosure is broken up into numerous sections, each related
to a portion of the invention, with no teachings as to how the
various portions are connected to each other and function in
response to one another, as recited in the claims. Further, the
examiner describes on pages 16-21 of the Answer the lack of any
disclosure of the claimed products and the steps of making them,
as recited in the claims. Therefore, the examiner has provided
reasoning regarding the adequacy of the disclosure.
Appellant states (Brief, pages 16-17) that the disclosure is
"legally correct and presumptively valid," since the examiner has
failed to present objective reasons to overcome the presumption.
The examiner has presented a clear explanation as to what claim
limitations he finds to be lacking from the disclosure. 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. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214-15, 211
USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). The test for written description is
summarized in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc. , 230 F.3d 1320,
1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007