Appeal No. 2006-1300
Application No. 08/203,672
The arguments advanced by the appellants with respect
to claim 24 (see page 12 in the main brief and page 5 in
the reply brief) mirror those made with respect to claim 20
and are unpersuasive for the same reasons. In this regard,
the appellants have not challenged the examiner’s
conclusion (see page 8 in the final rejection and page 6 in
the answer) that Yanase ‘006, considered in light of the
references therein to the breast pump/baby bottle disclosed
by Yanase ‘405, responds to the various “bag holder”
limitations in claim 24.
IV. New ground of rejection
The following new ground of rejection is entered
pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a specification that fails to
comply with the written description requirement.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1, 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
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007