Appeal No. 2000-2097 Page 8
Application No. 08/852,681
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Claims 28 and 29 together with parent claim 1 recite that
the "metal workpiece-engaging member" is "a ratchet gear."
After reviewing the application as originally filed, we fail
to find any support for the now claimed limitation that the
ratchet gear (e.g., # 51 in Figures 1, 3, 4 and 10) is made of
metal. While the appellants have written description support
for the workpiece-engaging members shown in Figures 11-13
(i.e., inserts 95 and 105) being made of metal (specification,
pp. 13-14), we have been unable to find any support that
ratchet gear 51 is made of metal.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35
U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007