Appeal No. 1999-0510
Application No. 08/728,787
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
(c) Claims 17 to 20 are rejected as being unpatentable for
failure to comply with the written description requirement of
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.2
In step (c) of claim 17 it is recited that the separator
devices "maintains a predetermined distance between the second
and third layers of the plurality of articles and said first
and second layer of articles resting on the first length of
the separator device" (lines 9 to 11), but no written
description of any such arrangement is contained in the
application as filed. Rather, as shown in Fig. 5b, although
the separator 70 does maintain a distance between second layer
66 and third layer 98, it is the third and fourth layers 98,
100 which rest on the first length 94 of the separator device,
not the first and second layers.
The Final Rejection
Rejection (1)
2In reviewing claim 17, we note that in line 4, --of--
should be inserted after "plurality"; in lines 9 to 15 (two
occurrences), "separator" should be --separator device--; and
in line 15, "where as" is not clear.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007