Appeal No. 1999-0117
Application 08/702,948
appeal as to finally rejected claims 20 and 22.1 Appellant
requests rehearing only with respect to (1).
As explained on pages 3-4 of our decision, two limitations
added to the claims during prosecution are considered by the
examiner as lacking descriptive support in the application as
originally filed. The first questioned limitation pertains to
the distal end configuration of the implant, while the second
limitation sets forth that the at least one helical channel of
the implant has “closed ends.” Appellant contends that we did
not analyze the original disclosure’s compliance with the written
description requirement according to the test set forth by the
Federal Circuit, but instead created and used our own test.
Specifically, appellant contends that we, in effect, required
that literal support be found in the original disclosure for the
limitations in question.
We have carefully reviewed our decision affirming the
examiner’s rejection in light of appellant’s request for
rehearing, but find no point that we have misapprehended or
overlooked in arriving at our decision. Accordingly, we decline
1 The appeal as to claims 20 and 22 was dismissed in light
of appellant’s statement on page 1 of the brief that the appeal
of these claims was no longer being pursued. These claims should
be canceled. MPEP § 1214.05.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007