Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
original claims, or the original drawings for a platform
that includes a means to drive the vehicle. Such a drive
means necessarily encompasses the engine of the vehicle.
As a result, the disclosure in appellant’s application as
originally filed does not reasonably convey to the artisan
that appellant had possession at that time of the subject
matter now claimed in claim 19. Thus, with regard to this
claim, the disclosure as originally filed does not satisfy
the description requirement in the first paragraph of
§ 112. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In summary:
1. The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Giladi in view
of Cepparo is affirmed.
2. The examiner’s decision to reject claims 17 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Giladi in view
of Cepparo is reversed.
3. The examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-4, 8-10
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Giladi in
view of Cepparo and Kishi is affirmed.
4. The examiner’s decision to reject claim 5 under
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007