Appeal No. 95-3807
Application 08/088,696
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is made to
2 3
the briefs and answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
"The function of the description requirement [of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112] is
to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the
specific subject matter later claimed by him." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90,
96 (CCPA 1976). "It is not necessary that the application describe the claim limitations exactly, .
. . but only so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize from the disclosure
that appellants invented processes including those limitations." In re Wertheim, supra citing In
re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
2 Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 3, 1995. We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on April 7, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as simply the reply brief.
The Examiner responded with a supplemental Examiner's answer and thereby entered and considered the reply brief.
Appellant filed a supplemental reply appeal brief on May 15, 1995. We will refer to this supplemental reply appeal
brief as simply the supplemental reply brief. The Examiner responded with a letter, mailed June 1, 1995, stating that the
supplemental reply brief has been entered and considered but not further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3 The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's answer, mailed March 10, 1995. We will refer to
the Examiner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's
answer, mailed April 18, 1995.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007