Appeal No. 2000-1000
Application No. 08/392,062
specification. No variation is even suggested as to other
than an undercut in each of the sidewalls of the conduit
groove for coacting with locking members in respective body
member bores. Thus, this panel of the board finds it
reasonable to say that the inclusion of an undercut in each of
the sidewalls of a conduit groove for engagement by locking
members in respective body member bores is an essential
structural attribute of appellant’s invention, necessary to
achieve the objective of a secure dam that won’t fly away and
cause injury.
Claims can be no broader than a supporting disclosure.
For the reasons set forth above, appellant’s narrow disclosure
limits claim breadth. See Gentry Gallery v. Berkline Corp.,
134 F.3d 1473, 1479, 45 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, each of claims 20 and 26 is simply not
descriptively supported by the original specification, and the
rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is clearly sound.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007