Appeal No. 1999-0406
Application 08/484,019
be considered in determining compliance with the written
description requirement. Id.
Claim 14 recites a vapor generator comprising, inter
alia, a chamber wall defining a plurality of holes having
substantially “regular” cross-section. The 37 CFR § 1.132
Declaration of Max Friedheim filed February 28, 1997 (Paper
No. 8) indicates that a “regular” cross-section is meant to
encompass “any regular cross-section such as rectangular or
triangular” (page 2, paragraph 5). There is no basis in the
original disclosure, however, for holes which have a
substantially “regular” cross-section. Thus, the disclosure
of the application as originally filed would not reasonably
convey to the artisan that the appellant had possession at
that time of the subject matter now recited in claims 14
through 16, 19 through 25, 27 and 28.
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4,
11, 14 through 16, 25, 28 through 31 and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Friedheim ‘037 is reversed;
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3, 5,
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007