Appeal No. 1999-0451 Page 2
Application No. 08/555,275
Appellant has filed a request under 37 CFR 1.197(b) for
reconsideration of our decision of July 29, 1999 (Paper No.2
20), wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9, 10,
13 and 15 to 23 for lack of compliance with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The request is accompanied by an affidavit of the
appellant concerning his intention as to the meaning of certain
language in the application as filed. This affidavit will be
considered only as argument, not as evidence. See MPEP §
1211.02 (July 1998), penultimate paragraph.
We note initially that in determining whether an
application’s disclosure complies with the written description
requirement of § 112, first paragraph, the question of what the
applicant intended to disclose is immaterial, since as stated
on page 3 of our decision, the test for compliance concerns
what is conveyed to those skilled in the art.
As discussed in our decision, the only occurrence of the
word “scheduled” in appellant’s disclosure as filed was on page
2Requests for reconsideration under 37 CFR 1.197(b) are
now designated requests for rehearing, per the amendment
effective December 1, 1997 (62 F.R. 53131 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 O.G. 63(Oct. 21, 1997)). See MPEP § 1214.03 (July 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007