Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), does Ahmed have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claim 22?
(iii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-12,
would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention have found
it obvious to combine Ahmed with Sato to render the claimed invention
unpatentable.
(iv) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 13,
16, 18, and 21,would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention have found it obvious to combine Ullman with Sato to render the
claimed invention unpatentable.
(v) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 14,
15, 17, 19, and 20 would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it obvious
to modify the combination of Ullman and Sato by adding various tertiary
references to render the claimed invention unpatentable.
(vi) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claim 23
would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention have found
it obvious to combine Ahmed with Neimat to render the claimed invention
unpatentable.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE
A. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
The function of the written description requirement of the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to ensure that the inventor has possession, as
of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter
later claimed by him. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013