Appeal No. 2000-1000
Application No. 08/392,062
The argument presented by appellant (brief, pages 5
through 9) is simply not convincing of error on the part of
the examiner in rejecting claims 20 and 26, in particular,
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Appellant argues (revised brief, page 7), in rebuttal of
the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter
lacks descriptive support, that
[o]ne can, in applicant’s original
application, locate one bore, and a second
bore, one undercut and a second undercut,
and one locking member and a second locking
member.
On this basis, appellant asserts there is no reason to further
address the issue of written description (revised brief, page
7).
While appellant may be able to refer in the argument to
one bore and a second bore, etc., as above, this is not
dispositive of the description issue on appeal. As is evident
to us from a reading of each of claims 20 and 26, these
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007