Ex Parte Walker - Page 4

            Appeal 2007-1883                                                                                  
            Application 10/469,203                                                                            

        1   which are provided to enable wear to be taken up by the set screw joint. See p. 1,                
        2   ll. 38-43.                                                                                        
        3          Gonzales discloses a self adjusting orthopedically correct saddle with side                
        4   bars 54´´ and a seat portion 74´.  The seat portion has a bridge in generally the                 
        5   medial portion of the saddle.  Gonzales has been cited by the Examiner to teach the               
        6   girth mounting plates 106, suspension element 38, and stirrup mounts 36, 136.                     
        7   Finally, Pellew has been cited for the adjustable brace structure disclosed therein               
        8   with the adjustability being provided by a barrel screw connector as show in Fig. 1.              
        9                                 PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                   
       10          Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of               
       11   35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact.  Regents of Univ. of Cal. v.             
       12   Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997),                    
       13   cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998)(citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d                     
       14   1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).  “To fulfill the written                      
       15   description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do                 
       16   so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the                
       17   inventor  invented  the  claimed  invention.” Id.  citing Lockwood  v.  American                  
       18   Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997) and In re                        
       19   Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he                       
       20   description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that             
       21   [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”).  Thus, an applicant complies with the                 
       22   written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed                
       23   limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive                     
       24   means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the                 
       25   claimed invention.”  Id. citing Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.                    


                                                      4                                                       


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013