Appeal No. 00-0910
Application No. 08/821,176
filing, there must be descriptive support within the meaning
of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the parent case
for the subject matter claimed in the continuing application.
Here, the disclosures of the Scharboneau patent and the
present application are for the most part the same in that the
only subject matter in the present application that does not
also appear in the Scharboneau patent is Figures 16 and 17 and
the portions of the specification relating to these figures.
Concerning the appealed claims, either a claim is directed to
subject matter disclosed in the parent Scharboneau patent or
it is not. As to a claim directed to subject matter fully
disclosed in the parent Scharboneau patent, said claim would
have an effective filing that coincides with the 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) date of the patent, such that the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
date of the patent would not predate the effective filing date
of the claim, and the Scharboneau patent would not constitute
prior art as to said claim. On the other hand, a claim
directed to subject matter that is not fully disclosed in the
parent Scharboneau patent (e.g., a claim specifically directed
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007