Appeal No. 1997-2760
Application No. 08/302,133
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Appellants’ specification in this application
describes the claimed invention in a manner which complies
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the
view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 2-5, 7, and 10-14. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, and 10-
14 under the written description requirement of the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. “The function of the
description requirement [of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112] is 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.” In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). "It is not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007