Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
subject matter of the present claims on appeal set forth and
focused upon in present claims 43 to 48 and 50 to 57 under the
written description portion of this statutory provision. We
are in general agreement with appellants’ observation at the
bottom of page 2 of the second reply brief, filed on December
30, 1996 where appellants indicate that they believe that the
examiner is placing all emphasis on the drawings while
ignoring the above specified language in the specification.
Although as asserted by the
examiner at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of the
supplemental answer, there is no embodiment which "shows" the
telephone system being partially integral and partially
separable with the rear-view mirror, the specification
language as quoted clearly indicates that this was
contemplated by the appellants and therefore was in their
possession at the original filing date of the present
application. This conclusion is buttressed by consideration
of the originally filed claims identified earlier. This
decision is believed to be consistent with the above noted
case law which indicates that there is no strict ipsis verbis
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007