Appeal No. 97-1542
Application No. 08/159,648
coverage of the first ground plane is not supported by the
specification," and "the coverage of the insulative layer over
the uncovered portions is not supported by the specification."
Appellant argues (Brief, page 4) that "every element of
the disputed portions of the claims are [sic] supported in the
drawings," and "[t]he portions of the specification supporting
Figures 6a and 6b also supports [sic] the claimed invention."
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for further
detailed positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The lack of written description rejection of claims 1 2
through 12 and 18 through 21 is reversed.
We agree with the appellant that the referenced portion
of the specification (page 11, last paragraph), and the
drawing provide adequate written description for the
questioned claim limitations. The drawing (Figures 6a and 6b)
shows "a first ground plane [620] covering portions of said
2The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 includes three
distinct sections (i.e., enablement, written description, and
best mode). The rationale for rejecting the claims on appeal
is the lack of written description (Answer, page 4), and not
the lack of enablement (Answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007