Appeal No. 2003-0757
Application No. 09/849,884
the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention” (Decision, page 3).
Appellant requests rehearing based on several issues.
First, appellant submits that the Board has a “problem” with the
definition of “concentration” and “approximately” (Request, page
1). Appellant argues that these are “dictionary defined words”
that are readily understood (Request, paragraph bridging pages 1-
2). Appellant requests the Board to indicate whether or not it
understands the terms “approximate” and “concentration” (Request,
sentence bridging pages 3-4).
Appellant’s arguments are not well taken. The question is
not whether this merits panel of the Board has a “problem” with
the claimed words “approximately” and “concentration” but whether
appellant’s specification, at the time the application was filed,
would have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in this
art that appellant was in possession of the subject matter in
question. See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ
465, 467 (CCPA 1978). The subject matter in question includes
the words “approximately” and “concentration” since the examiner
questions the original support or written description for the
claimed phrase “and a second layer overlying said first layer
having an ultraviolet absorber of approximately one-fifth the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007