Appeal No. 2003-0607
Application 09/532,968
App. & Int. 1987). In the present case, we conclude that the
examiner has failed to meet this initial burden.
The examiner asserts that he could find neither
explicit nor implicit support for the claim language at issue.
However, we are in agreement with appellants that the language
found on page 8, lines 3-10, of the specification (Appeal Brief,
page 4) as well as the description provided on page 8, line 10-
page 9, line 2, reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that
the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention. In fact, the phrase “one-
ended reduction in layer length” used in the disputed claim
language appears on page 8, line 3, of the specification, and the
meaning of this phrase is described in connection with figure 2.
See specification, page 9, line 2, referencing figure 2, as well
as the reference numerals D1, 10U and L1 all of which are used in
discussing the “one-ended reduction in layer length” and appear
only in figure 2. Thus, we cannot agree with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would somehow interpret the
language “one-ended reduction in the length” as relating to the
process steps involved in cleaving the preform which are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007