Appeal No. 1997-3870
Application No. 08/421,055
the definition and properties of dimensionally stable films but
does not disclose anything about the pre-selected topography.
The disclosure at page 7, ll. 8-17, is concerned with emblems or
insignia. However, this disclosure is directed to the “sheet
material” which has previously been defined as the melt-flowable
sheet material or composition, not the dimensionally stable film
(see the specification, page 7, ll. 13-15; and the definition of
“melt-flowable sheet material” on page 6, ll. 10-21). Appellants
specifically argue that a “melt-flowable composition” is defined
in the specification at page 6, ll. 15-21 (Brief, page 3). We
determine that the disclosure at page 7 is relevant to melt-
flowable sheet material but fail to find any basis for the pre-
selected surface topography of the dimensionally stable film.
Accordingly, we determine no reversible error in the examiner’s
findings and affirm the rejection of claim 6 through 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph one, for failure to meet the “written
description” requirement.
The examiner has rejected claims 14, 15 and 29-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, as “not completely enabled by the
disclosure.” Answer, page 4. As noted in Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1117, the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, is separate and
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007