Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 6




          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