Appeal No. 97-1475
Application 08/069,544
application would have readily recognized from the depiction in
Figures 1 and 3 of the shackle (30) and locking pin (46), and
from the description in the original specification, that these
elements of the lock therein were made completely of Nitinol, for
example, of Type 55 Nitinol, or in appellant's terms that the
shackle and locking pin are made of "a single homogeneous
undifferentiated material throughout," with that material being
"solid monolithic Nitinol." Thus, when we give proper
consideration to the entire disclosure of appellant's application
as originally filed, as such would be viewed by the person of
ordinary skill in the art, we find that there is a reasonable
basis to conclude that the disclosure would have conveyed to the
artisan that the inventor had possession of the presently claimed
subject matter of claims 11 through 30 on appeal at the time of
filing of the application. The examiner's rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking support
in the originally filed disclosure will therefore not be
sustained.
It follows from our determination above, regarding the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007