Appeal No. 1997-0321
Application 08/052,494
Appellants and the Examiner, we make reference to the brief
and the answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants’ arguments
against the rejection as set forth in the brief.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejection of claims 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph is not proper.
The Rejection
Claims 10 to 15 are rejected as failing to provide an
adequate written description of the invention [answer, pages 4
to 6].
As a general proposition, the written description
requirement serves "to ensure that the inventor had
possession, as of the filing date of the application relied
on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him; how
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007