Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323,
56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Waldemar Link
GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558, 31 USPQ2d
1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For these reasons, we determine
that the examiner’s conclusion that the limitation at issue in
each of claims 119 and 132 lacks description in the original
disclosure is sound.
The argument of appellants simply does not persuade us
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 119 and 132 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
In the main brief (pages 11 and 12), appellants argue
that the limitation at issue is inherent in what is taught by
the specification and that expert declarants Cockrell, Jr. 10
and Hamilton, Jr., focus on the “plurality of different
directions” language, and support that position. At this
point, we note that, contrary to appellants’ understanding,
our reading of the Hamilton declaration reveals to us that the
10The Declarations of John R. Cockrell, Jr. and George W.
Hamilton, Jr. are found in APPENDIX D of the main brief at Tab
1 and Tab 2, respectively.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007