Appeal No. 97-1029
Application 08/456,166
the claim limitation at issue, particularly when such is
interpreted, as it must be, in light of the underlying
specification (see pages 8 and 9). Moreover, there is nothing
in the Romaine disclosure which would have suggested modifying
the compression wrap bandage disclosed therein to take the
form of a “substantially flat, coiled, spirally-cut layer.”
Since Koide does not cure this deficiency in Romaine with
respect to the subject matter recited in independent claims
25, 29 and 30, the standing prior art rejections of these
claims, and of claim 28 which depends from claim 25, must
fall.
The following rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claim 26, and claim 27 which depends therefrom, are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
based on a specification which fails to comply with the
written description requirement of this section of the
statute.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007