Appeal No. 95-2440
Application 07/705,726
now claimed. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at
1117; In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner has rejected claims 72 through 92 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking descriptive support
for the invention as is now claimed in the original
specification. The examiner then enumerated certain later
added claim limitations which are said to have no literal
support in the specification. In response, appellants
referred to certain descriptions of the original disclosure.
See Brief, pages 20 to 26. According to appellants, these
descriptions reasonably conveyed the claim limitations in
question. However, the examiner did not fully explain why
each and every description referred to by appellants did not
reasonably convey the claim limitations in question.
Upon return of the application, the examiner is to
determine whether each and every description relied upon by
appellants reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the
art the claim limitations in question within the meaning of §
112, first paragraph.
REJECTION UNDER § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007