Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
(2) claims 69-74, 76 and 77. All claims in group 1 depend
directly from independent claim 61. All claims in group 2
depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 69.
Within each group, the individual claims have not been argued
separately with any reasonable degree of specificity. Accord-
ingly, the claims of group 1 will be considered to stand or
fall together with claim 61 and the claims of group 2 will be
considered to stand or fall together with claim 69. See,
e.g., In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
REJECTION UNDER § 112, ¶ 1
The written description requirement requires that an
applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or
she was in
possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991)(quoted in Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354, 47 USPQ2d
1128, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). When a claimed limitation is
not expressly described and inherency is relied on to support
that limitation, an applicant is required to establish that
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007