Page 5
Our review of appellants’ specification, particularly the description on page 16, line
6 through page 17, line 16 brings us into agreement with the appellant that the
claimed language, “maintaining the saturation substantially throughout” is described in
such a manner that the specification provides a reasonable standard for understanding
the metes and bounds of the term, supra when the claim is read in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc, 731 F.2d
818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-574 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection of the examiner.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112 on the grounds of lack of enablement. In a rejection under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph one, it is sufficient if the originally filed
disclosure would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that an appellant
had possession of the concept of what is claimed. In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237,
1240-41, 176 USPQ 331, 333 (CCPA 1973). There is no requirement that the
language of the claimed subject matter be present in the specification in ipsissima
verba. It is the examiner’s position that appellants do not teach “substantially.” We
disagree.
The examiner’s rejection does not go beyond that stated supra. However we
previously determined that the specification, page 16, line 6 to page 17, line 16,
uses the term, “substantially” and provides an adequate explanation such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the term when read in light of
the specification.
Based upon the above consideration, we conclude that appellants in their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007