Appeal No. 96-3919
Application 08/224,163
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (citations omitted; emphasis added).
In the present application, appellant added to each of the
independent claims the limitation that the blade portion of the
cap extends in a plane which is generally perpendicular to a
centerline of the body portion. We believe one of ordinary skill
in the art, upon review of appellant’s specification and drawing
figures, would consider the centerline of body portion 23 to be
an axial line passing through the center of the body portion of
the cap, such that the blade 26 extends radially in a plane which
includes the centerline of the body portion, rather than
perpendicular thereto. Based on this interpretation of what
constitutes the centerline of the body portion 23, there is no
descriptive support in the original disclosure for the invention
as now claimed.4
4We are aware of the amendment to the drawings proposed by
appellant adding line 27 to Figures 3 and 4, and the
corresponding amendment to the specification describing line 27
as a “longitudinal centerline” of the body portion. In our view,
these amendments are inconsistent with that which was originally
disclosed. In any event, these changes have no effect on
appellant’s original disclosure, which is the standard used for
determining compliance with the description requirement found in
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007