Ex parte COLLINS - Page 8

          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               
               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.                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007