Appeal No. 99-0920
Application No. 08/629,323
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that
the record before us on this appeal reveals nothing in the
originally filed specification disclosure (1) to suggest that
adhesive zone shapes other than the annular shapes
specifically disclosed therein are part of this disclosure
(Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., id.) or, stated otherwise, (2) which
would reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellants had
possession on the filing date of the now claimed subject
matter (In re Kaslow, id.). It follows that we will sustain
the examiner’s section 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claims 20 through 31 and 33 for failing to comply with the
written description requirement set forth in this paragraph.3
The section 103 rejection
For the reasons expressed in the answer, we agree with
the examiner’s ultimate conclusion that it would have been
3We here clarify that the claims included in this
rejection have not been separately argued by the appellants in
their brief (see pages 6 through 8 thereof) and accordingly
fall together as a group (see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1998)). It
may be that the appellants have not separately argued any of
these claims (such as dependent claim 30) because they
consider all of them to embrace adhesive zone shapes which
are, inter alia, “characterized by curved lines” but not
“[s]haped like or forming a ring” and therefore consider them
all to be impacted by the written description issue under
consideration.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007