Appeal No. 96-3613
Application 08/335,496
appellant's invention. We, of course, fully appreciate that, as
a general proposition, a claim may be broader than the specific
embodiment disclosed in a specification. However, an inventor is
entitled to claims only as broad as a disclosure will allow. See
In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA
1981). In the present case, we, like the examiner, have
determined that the claims on appeal are simply not descriptively
supported by the underlying original disclosure.
The argument advanced by appellant in the brief (Paper No.
10) does not persuade us that the examiner erred in rejecting
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
In support of the view that the rejection is unsound,
appellant argues (brief, pages 10 and 11) that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would “realize” from a review of the original
disclosure in this application that the disclosed sealing and
locking relationships “could be” repositioned as a “variation” of
the embodiment specifically disclosed. As is evident from our
analysis, supra, this is not a convincing line of reasoning for
overcoming the rejection before us based upon a lack of
description (35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph).
We conclude by noting that appellant has indicated that as
an “important feature” of the invention the door includes a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007