Ex parte OLE K. NILSSEN - Page 3




              Appeal No. 95-0325                                                                                                                       
              Application 07/859,616                                                                                                                   

                       We refer to appellant's Brief for the position of appellant and to the Final Rejection and                                      
              Examiner's Answer for the position of the examiner.                                                                                      
                                                                OPINION                                                                                
                       We reverse.                                                                                                                     
              35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph                                                                                                         
                       The written description rejection under  112, first paragraph, is used when a claim is                                         
              amended  to  recite  elements  thought  to  be  without  support  in  the  original  disclosure.                                         
              In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214-15, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).  "[C]laimed                                                      
              subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the specification in order for that                                                
              specification  to  satisfy  the  description  requirement."  In  re  Smith,  481  F.2d  910,  914,                                       
              178 USPQ 620, 624 (CCPA 1973).  "[U]nder proper circumstances, drawings alone may provide                                                
              a 'written description' of an invention as required by  112."  Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,                                               
              935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                                                                              
                       Appellant argues that figure 3f, which "indicates the waveform of the voltage present                                           
              across switching transistor Qs" (specification, page 5, lines 5-6), shows that the transistor Qs                                         
              conducts "intermittently" and "at a time-varying switching frequency."  We agree.  Transistor Qs                                         
              conducts intermittently:  it is either fully conducting (with zero volts across it) or non-conducting                                    
              (with the ESC voltage across it) (specification, page 6, first para.; figure 3f).  The examiner states                                   
              that "the relationship between the transistor Qs and the capacitor ESC as cited in the item (a) of                                       
              the brief is not related to the time-varying switching frequency at all" (Examiner's Answer,                                             

                                                                   - 3 -                                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007