Ex Parte Rard - Page 3


               Appeal No. 2003-1640                                                                                                   
               Application 09/634,692                                                                                                 

               defined by the limitations specified in appealed independent claims 16 and 25.  Appealed claims                        
               23 and 25 encompass certain limitations with respect to a rudder trim adjustment assembly of the                       
               steering assembly.                                                                                                     
                       The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                  
               Pelletier                                    4,231,309                              Nov. 4, 1980                    
               Carré et al. (Carré)                          2 613 318                              Oct.   7, 1988                  
                       (published French Patent Application)                                                                          
                       The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:                                        
               claims 18, 20, 21, 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to                      
               comply with the written description requirement (answer, pages 3-5);                                                   
               claims 1, 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pelletier (answer,                         
               page 6); and,                                                                                                          
               claims 16, 17 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Carré (answer,                          
               page 6).                                                                                                               
                       Appellant does not group the appealed claims in the brief.1  Accordingly, we decide this                       
               appeal based on appealed claims 1, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23 and 25.  37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003).                            
                       We reverse.                                                                                                    
                       Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,                        
               we refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellant’s brief and reply brief for a complete                              
               exposition thereof.                                                                                                    
                                                              Opinion                                                                 
                       It is well settled that the examiner has the burden of making out a prima facie case that                      
               the appealed claims do not comply with § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement,                        
               by setting forth evidence or reasons why, as a matter of fact, the written description in appellant’s                  
               disclosure would not reasonably convey to persons skilled in this art that appellant was in                            
               possession of the invention defined by the claims, including all of the limitations thereof, at the                    
               time the application was filed.  See generally, In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1172, 1175-76,                              
               37 USPQ2d 1578, 1581, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996), citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262-64,                           
               191 USPQ 90, 96-97 (CCPA 1976).  It is further well settled that while the written description                         
                                                                                                                                     
               1  We consider the brief filed March 20, 2003 (Paper No. 22).                                                          

                                                                - 3 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007