Appeal No. 96-3407
Application 08/325,549
F.2d at 593, 194 USPQ at 474, in quoting with approval from In
re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 640, 188 USPQ 129, 131 (CCPA 1975):
“That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading
the
disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient
indication to that person that the step is part of appellants’
invention” (emphasis in original).
Here, claim 1 (and claim 16 by virtue of its dependency
thereon) sets forth (1) that the spool is free from attachment
to the container and (2) a footplate "including mounting holes
which extend through the foot plate." We must point out,
however, that the only originally disclosed embodiments which
have mounting holes are those of Figs. 5 and 6, and Fig. 7.
In the embodiment of Figs. 5 and 6 the spool is "attached" to
the container by retainer 137. In the embodiment of Fig. 7,
the spool is attached to the container via electrical cords
11, 170. Thus, there is no descriptive support in the
original disclosure for an embodiment which satisfies both the
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007