Appeal No. 96-3181
Application 08/251,963
by walls. The rotational direction B of the drum cylinder is also apparent from “FIG. 6” and appellants
disclose that “rim speed” can be “approximately 2m/s” (col. 7, lines 43-50).
Based on the disclosure in the original patent specification and drawings taken as a whole, we
find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized that the original disclosure in col. 8, lines
35-43, describes an embodiment wherein, if a flexible wiper is employed, a slight pressure increase
occurs in space 98 each time the forward wall of one of the numerous filtrate compartment 20 passes
the tip of wiper 92 as the drum cylinder rotates. Appellants have selected the term “pressure
pulsations” to describe these repeated, separate increases, or pulses, in pressure in space 98 and have
demonstrated (reply brief, page 2) that the activity described in the quoted passage from the original
patent specification can be adequately described by the term “pulsation” when given its ordinary
meaning.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to establish by evidence or reason that, prima
facie, appealed claims 16 and 18 through 20 do not comply with § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement, because persons skilled in this art would have recognized in the disclosure a
description of the methods encompassed by the appealed claims through the use of the term “pressure
pulsations.”
Thus, the examiner’s ground of rejection under § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement, and his decision are reversed.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007