Appeal No. 1998-0613
Application 08/554,998
ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In re
Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The
question is not whether an added word was the word used in the
specification as filed, but whether there is support in the
specification for the employment of the word in the claims,
that is, whether the concept is present in the original
disclosure. See In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ
331, 336 (CCPA 1973).
In the instant case the Examiner finds no support in the
specification for the claim language:
the I/O board configured to compare the particular
sequence of I/O commands and addresses to a
predetermined sequence; and
the I/O board configured to activate at least a
portion of the I/O board when the particular
sequence of I/O commands and addresses matches the
predetermined sequence.
The Examiner discusses the specification and arguments and
concludes “The above passage clearly shows that an address is
not needed to activate some aspects of the board.” (Answer-
page 4.)
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007