Appeal No. 95-5048
Application No. 08/162,372
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("drawings alone may provide a 'written
description' of an invention as required by § 112"). We agree
with appellant that Figures 1 and 4 "unambiguously show the
connection solely adjacent the hinge portion" (Reply to
Supplemental Examiner's Answer, p.4). Therefore, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
reversed.5
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 1 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention. Specifically
(Supplemental Examiner's Answer, p.6):
The recitation of "hinge-like" is unclear
to the Examiner's [sic, Examiner] because
the phrase hinge-like does not clearly
5 The specification has also been objected to under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide support
for the phrase "said edge portion solely adjacent said hinge
portion" (see Supplemental Examiner's Answer, p.6). This
objection appears to be moot in view of the reversal of the
rejection of claims 1 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007