Appeal No. 95-4373
Application 07/917,108
Appellant argues on page 3 of the supplemental brief that
these amendments to the specification are simply inserting the
language found in the original claims. Appellant points out that
original claim 1 recites "characterized in that the threshold
value for the next original image following the original image is
set so high that ...." Appellant points out on page 4 of the
supplemental brief that original claim 3 recites "for those
images in which the threshold was set high." Appellant argues
that the amendment to the specification corresponds in substance,
if not identically, to the recitation appearing in the original
claims and therefore cannot constitute new matter.
The issue before us is whether the inventor had possession,
as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the
specific subject matter later claimed by him. We note that
appellant’s original claims are to be considered as the original
disclosure as filed and are to be considered with the entire
filing in our determination of whether the inventor had
possession at the time of the filing date of the application.
We find that the above amendments to the specification
correspond in substance to the recitations found in the original
claims as filed on the application date and thereby Appellant did
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007