Appeal No. 1997-2289
Application 08/395,691
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Finally, "[p]recisely how close the
original description must come to comply with the description
requirement of § 112 must be determined on a case-by-case
basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039, 34 USPQ2d
1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vasilkov-Cath, 935 F.2d
at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116).
In view of the above guidelines and the Appellant’s
explanation, we are convinced that the written description
requirement is met in this case. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7 to 9, 11 to
13, and 16 to 19 as being anticipated by Anderson.
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature
of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see
Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007