Appeal No. 1999-2556
Application 08/774,848
rejection of claim 18, which depends from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Manning in view of Watson and Clark, or the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 19, which
depends from claim 1, and of claim 43, which depends
ultimately from claim 25, as being unpatentable over Watson in
view of Manning and Weldon.
NEW REJECTION
The following rejection is entered pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 3, 7 and 8 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
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007