Appeal No. 1997-3919
Application 08/392,160
Upon our review of the specification, we find that the
application does not use the exact words "luminous flux having
wavelength of a visible area." However, 35 U.S.C. § 112 does
not require that the Applicant use the exact words in the
specification that are set forth in the claimed limitations.
Instead, 35 U.S.C. § 112 only requires that it is necessary
that the application describe the claimed limitations
so that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
from the disclosure that Appellant did indeed possess the
claimed invention. Upon reviewing the claim language as
recited in Appellant's claim 1, we find that the disclosure as
originally filed would have conveyed to those skilled in the
art that Appellant had invented the subject matter now
claimed. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, we fail to find that the Examiner has set forth
a prima facie case. It is the burden of the Examiner to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007