Appeal No. 2003-1038
Application No. 09/262,628
amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be written
description of the claim limitation ‘______’ in the application
as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended
claim, the support for the limitation is not readily apparent,
and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is
supported.”).
As we noted above, the appellants rely on the “Background
of the Invention” section in the specification for support.
There, the appellants disclose that prior art orthodontic
articles “recently have been formed from plastic...” (Page 1,
lines 13-18.) We note, however, that the specification does not
state whether these prior art orthodontic articles are based on
fluoropolymers, much less whether the appellants’ invention is
formulated such that the plasticity of the prior art articles is
retained. On this point, we further note that the specification
describes the use of “plastic” additives such as polycarbonate
or polyurethane. (Page 18, lines 13-15.) Thus, even if the
claimed articles were presumed to be “plastic,” there is no
indication in the specification that it is the fluoropolymer
that is responsible for this characteristic.
The appellants allege that all seven enumerated
fluoropolymers are “fluoroplastic.” (Appeal brief, pages 8-9.)
However, except for the two polymers mentioned in Grootaert
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007