Appeal No. 1997-0031
Application 07/987,669
question that claims 24 and 25 are rather unartfully drafted.
Nonetheless, when read in context and in light of the
underlying disclosure, they merely identify with sufficient
clarity the four different colors (or pigments) mentioned in
parent claim 17.
Thus, the examiner’s concern that claims 17 through 21,
24 and 25, are indefinite is not well founded. Therefore, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of these claims.
As for the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description rejection, the test for determining compliance
with the written description requirement is whether the
disclosure of
the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007