Appeal No. 2001-1622 Page 6
Application No. 09/226,969
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 4-6) that the claim
12 limitation that at least one of the layers has "a plurality
of rows of discrete and spaced apart pockets" therein lacked
support in the original disclosure. We do not agree. We
agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 5-6; reply
brief, pp. 1-3) that the appellants' Figure 2 combined with
the description at page 5, lines 8 et seq., provide the
required written description support for the above-noted claim
limitation. It is our view that the original disclosure that
the pockets 16 shown in the cross-sectional view of Figure 2
are semi-spherical in shape and that the resulting multi-
layered sheet can be cut into suitable widths or lengths to
form the pool cover would be sufficient to reasonably convey
to an artisan that the appellants had possession at the time
the invention was filed of the later claimed subject matter
(i.e., the above-noted limitation of claim 12). In that
regard, Figure 2 clearly shows the appellants' layer 15 with a
row of discrete and spaced apart semi-spherical pockets 16.
Since the pockets are semi-spherical in shape it is clear to
us that to form a pool cover there must be more than one row
of discrete and spaced apart semi-spherical pockets 16, thus
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007