Appeal No. 1997-4259
Application No. 08/259,474
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
brief (Paper No. 15, filed September 30, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed March 7, 1997) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 9 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, which
rejection is based upon the written description requirement of
the first paragraph of § 112. In general, the test for
determining compliance with the written description
requirement of § 112 is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007