Appeal No. 96-3919
Application 08/224,163
We have also carefully reviewed the Neidhardt reference
additionally relied upon by the examiner but find nothing therein
that makes up for the deficiencies of Downes and Manzardo
discussed above.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the standing
rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
New Rejection Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new rejections.
Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an original disclosure that
does not provide descriptive support for the invention as now
claimed.
With respect to the written description requirement found in
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
[t]he test for determining compliance . . . [therewith]
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. The content of the drawings may also
be considered in determining compliance with the
written description requirement.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007