Appeal No. 95-3566
Application No. 07/950,802
We will also not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1-7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being based upon an original specification that does not
provide descriptive support for the language "free of
engagement between the tail pulley and restraining means"
present in claim 1. According to the examiner, appellant's
specification, at page 2, line 32 to page 3, line 1, states
that "the headed shaft nonetheless provides a constraint on
the range of tail pulley motion relative to the stabilizer
bar," and therefore directly contradicts the limitation of
"free of engagement between the tail pulley and restraining
means" (page 4 of Answer).
The description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, does not require that the later added claim
limitation be described in ipsis verbis in the original
disclosure but, rather, the original disclosure needs to3
reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
inventor had in his possession, as of the filing date of the
3 In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914, 178 USPQ 620, 624 (CCPA
1973).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007