Appeal No. 1998-2849 Page 8
Application No. 08/584,158
In our view, the examiner has not met this initial burden
of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the
art
would not recognize in the appellant's disclosure a
description of the invention defined by the claims. In this
regard, we note that the examiner has not (1) identified the
claim limitation not described; and (2) provided reasons why
persons skilled in the art at the time the application was
filed would not have recognized the description of the claimed
limitations in the disclosure of the application as filed.
We have reviewed the specific concern stated by the
examiner in this rejection (i.e., the addition of two
paragraphs to pages 16 and 26 of the specification), but find
nothing therein which supports a rejection based upon the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. In this case, the examiner has not even identified
the specific language in those paragraphs that constitutes the
alleged "new matter." In any event, it is our opinion that
the meaning of the claimed phrase "emotional distance" as
understood by one of ordinary level of skill in the art is not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007