Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 10
Application No. 08/706,767
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) regarding claims
15 and 25 that "the originally filed specification fails to
disclose the pipe being coated with a metallic, non downwardly
depending wick coating selected from the group consisting of a
fine metallic mesh and a compacted metal wool."
We will not sustain this rejection as it pertains to
claims 25 to 34 since the objected to language is not found in
claim 25.
We sustain this rejection as it pertains to claims 15 to
24 since the original disclosure does not provide written
description support for the use of the words "coated" and
"coating" in the phrase "the pipe being coated externally with
a coating comprising a metallic coating without a downwardly
depending wick, said metallic coating being selected from the
group consisting of a fine metallic mesh, and a compacted
metal wool." As pointed out by the examiner (answer, p. 8),
the original disclosure (at page 2) provides that the pipe is
covered, not coated, externally with a fine metallic mesh, and
a compacted metal wool. In contrast, the original disclosure
(at page 2) did provide that the pipe can be coated with a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007