Appeal No.1998-2486
Application No. 08/751,375
supported by Figures 4 and 5, in our view, amounts to no more than mere speculation.
This percentage cannot be determined from the drawings and there is no written
description of the drawings in the specification which would support this conclusion. It
does not appear to us that appellant was in possession of the subject matter now set forth
in claims 17-19 and 21 at the time of filing the application.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 17-19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We reach an opposite result with regard to the rejections of the claims over prior
art.
Morehouse does, indeed, disclose a protective jacket for a removable electronic
subassembly and that the protective jacket is made of a resilient material. The problem is
that each of the instant claims requires that the resilient material and the rigid enclosure,
together, “have at least one exterior dimension substantially exceeding said selected form
factor in an uncompressed state, wherein said resilient material may be substantially
compressed such that said at least one exterior dimension conforms to said selected form
factor.” Morehouse is silent on any compression of the resilient material.
Of course, it goes without saying that a “resilient” material is compressible to some
extent and so the resilient jacket of Morehouse is “compressible.” But there is no
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007