Appeal No. 95-4189
Application 07/334,872
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claims on appeal are directed to magnetic flux density film. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A heat resistant, high saturation magnetic flux density film, comprising a single
layer containing a plurality of crystal grains of ferromagnetic metal, and carbide
positioned around each of said plurality of crystal grains.
The Rejection
Claims 1-6 and 12-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the ground
that the term “film” referred to in appellants’ specification is, in actuality, comprised of several
laminated sub-layers .2
Opinion
We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellants and the
examiner. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
The function of the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement
is to ensure that the inventors have possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific
subject matter later claimed. In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA
1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). To comply with this
The final rejection included other rejections. Claims 7-11 and 26-31 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.2
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al (Patent No. 4,920,013). The same claims were rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-9 of Patent No. 4,920,013. These
rejections were rendered moot by the cancellation of the rejected claims. See Paper No. 15.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007