Appeal No. 1997-1888 Page 5
Application No. 08/221,467
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
--The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection--
The examiner objects to the specification as originally
filed because it does not provide support for "the reinforcing
material body extends at an obtuse angle from the inner edge
of the endless belt" (claim 52).4 The examiner's rejection of
claims 51 and 52 is for the reasons set forth in the objection
to the specification (answer, page 3). Given the examiner's
depiction of the rejection, it is clear to us that the issue
is whether the written description supports these claims.
The appellants' acknowledge that "the phrase 'obtuse
angle' is not recited in the written specification as
originally filed" and argue "[h]owever, this feature is shown
in the originally filed drawings" (brief, page 8). The
4 The examiner has also rejected claim 51 on this same ground and we interpret
the rejection to extend to the similar phrase "the yarn extends at an obtuse
angle from the inner edge of the endless belt" as used in claim 51.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007