Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the invention of claim 22 is adequately supported by
the disclosure. We are further of the view that the evidence
relied upon is insufficient to support any of the prior art
rejections of claims 1, 8, 9, 13 and 21. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 22 as being
based on an inadequate disclosure. This rejection is based on
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Specifically, the examiner asserts that the original
disclosure does not provide support for the invention now
recited in claim 22. The examiner finds that the
disclosure of the enclosure resting in a groove of the vessel
does not support the claimed “enclosure being attached to said
heating chamber by a seal” [answer, page 6]. Appellants
respond that the disclosure of a bell jar in a groove to
prevent convection currents is sufficient to support the
recitation of a seal within its usual definition [brief, page
8].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007