Appeal No. 97-2963 Page 6
Application No. 08/284,728
We have reviewed the specific concern stated by the examiner
in this rejection of claims 1 to 13, 15 to 19 and 21 to 27, but
find nothing therein which supports a rejection based upon the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Specifically, the original disclosure at page 39,
lines 28-29, describes the resilient patch 84 as being composed
of a material that is substantially non-elastomeric. In
addition, the original disclosure at page 40, line 31, to page
41, line 6, describes the nonwettable resilient patch 84 as being
composed of a fibrous, nonwoven material which is substantially
non-elastomeric and does not generate gathers in the front
waistband margin of the article. Thus, it is clear that the
claimed term "resilient, non-elastomeric" was described in the
original specification.
For the reasons set forth above, the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the subject
matter recited in the appealed claims.
The obviousness issues
Rejections based on Lippert
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007