Ex parte MAYER - Page 4




                Appeal No. 95-4373                                                                                                          
                Application 07/917,108                                                                                                      


                Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer  for       2                       3                              

                the details thereof.                                                                                                        
                                                                OPINION                                                                     
                        We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 through 19                                                           
                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                                                               


                        2Appellant filed an appeal brief on October 19, 1994.  We will refer to                                             
                this appeal brief as simply the brief.  Appellant filed a supplemental appeal                                               
                brief on December 19, 1994.  We will refer to this supplemental appeal brief                                                
                as the supplemental brief.  Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on January                                                 
                25, 1995.  The Examiner's letter, paper number 24 mailed on March 15, 1995,                                                 
                states that the supplemental brief has been entered and considered by the                                                   
                Examiner, but the reply appeal brief has not been entered nor considered.                                                   
                Appellant filed another reply appeal brief on May 28, 1997.  We will refer to                                               
                this reply appeal brief as the reply brief.  The Examiner responded to the                                                  
                reply brief with a letter, paper number 31 mailed on July 9, 1997, stating                                                  
                that the reply brief has been entered and considered by the Examiner but no                                                 
                further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.                                                                       
                        3The Examiner mailed an Examiner's answer on November 23, 1994.  In                                                 
                response to our remand, the Examiner mailed another Examiner's answer on March                                              
                28, 1997.  We note that the latter Examiner's answer is to replace the earlier                                              
                answer. Thus, the March 28, 1997 Examiner's answer is the only Examiner's                                                   
                answer that is before us for our consideration.  We will refer to the March                                                 
                28, 1997 Examiner's answer as the answer.                                                                                   
                                                                     4                                                                      






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007