Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
which set forth that the standard must be such as to enable
the artisan to make and use the claimed invention without
undue experimentation. Our study of the written description
portion of the disclosure, the attached drawings and the
claims on appeal lead us to conclude that the examiner has not
expressed any rationale to convince us that it would have
required the artisan undue experimentation to have made and
used the presently claimed invention. Essentially, all of the
features recited in the pending claims on appeal are shown in
the drawing figures.
The focus of the examiner’s rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112 appears to be the written description portion
according to the examiner’s reasoning as best expressed in the
supplemental answer, where the assertion is made that the
specification as filed as a whole indicated that the inventors
did not have possession of the presently claimed invention.
Initially, we note that the examiner’s earlier reasoning
for lack of "support" for the claimed invention of claims
implicitly referred to the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007