Appeal No. 97-0972
Application 08/399,571
In the present case, we believe the appellants’ disclosure
fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art
descriptive support for the limitation that the elongated member
is fabricated from an “at least semi-rigid material.” By the
recitation “at least” the appellants have set forth an open-ended
range which would include anything from semi-rigid material to
rigid material. Here, the appellants have disclosed no range
whatsoever but, instead, have merely disclosed a flexible, yet
resilient, material that is sufficiently rigid to maintain the
seat members in a substantially horizontal orientation (see,
generally, page 6 of the specification).
In summary:
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Devney is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gardels is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4, 5 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gardels is reversed.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007