Appeal No. 2003-1653
Application No. 09/828,102
Claims 19 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schrum.
Claims 32 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schrum in view of Allard.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
14) and to the final rejection and examiner’s answer (Paper Nos.
9 and 15) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description
requirement), rejection of claims 19 through 34
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement of § 112, ¶ 2, is whether the disclosure
of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence
of literal support in the specification for the claim language.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007