Appeal No. 1998-0244
Application No. 08/531,890
2 which depends from claim 3, as being unpatentable over Seth
in view of Szycher, Sablotsky, Morgan and Blackford.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
The following rejections are entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 2 through 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails
to comply with the written description requirement of this
section of the statute.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement 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
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
absence of
literal support in the specification for the claim language.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Independent claims 3 and 4 recite a continuous production
process which includes, inter alia, the steps of (1) providing
a laminate in tape form comprising a pressure-sensitive
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007