Ex parte COLLINS - Page 9

                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.                                                                                       

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007