Appeal No. 1997-0008
Application 08/347,190
cleaning assistant” in a specified amount, wherein the ingredients can include those necessary to “obtain
a so-called magnetic toner” (id., page 1, line 2, through page 4, line 21). Indeed, we find that within
pages 1 through 5, line 10, of the specification are disclosed each and every limitation of claims 7 and
8.
Because we find that the examiner has not considered the entire disclosure in appellant’s
specification which pertains to the claimed invention of claims 7 and 8, we must conclude that the
examiner has not made out a prima facie case that the appealed claims do not comply with § 112,
first paragraph, written description requirement. Accordingly, we reverse this ground of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007