Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b),
this panel of the Board enters the following new rejection:
Claims 1-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the specification does not contain a
written description of the claimed invention, in that the
disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the
relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed
invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a compliant, nonresilient
transverse partition” (emphasis added). The term
“nonresilient” is not used in the original disclosure to
describe the transverse barrier, but was added to the claims
in the first amendment (Paper No. 6), in response to a
rejection of claim 1 in the first office action (Paper No. 3).
From our perspective, it
constitutes new matter. We are aware of the fact that the
appellants have annotated to page 10, lines 26-28 of the
specification for support for “nonresilient” in the summary of
the invention section on page 2 of the Appeal Brief. However,
it is our view that the descriptive words used there to
-15-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007