Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
in the art, reading the original disclosure, would not have
been informed of appellants’ interest in or possession of
equivalents, now claimed as part of the means plus function
recitation. It worthy of noting that if, for example,
subsequent to the filing of the application appellants had
submitted amendments to the specification and drawing
describing a number of rib equivalent structures, this would
have violated the prohibition against the introduction of new
matter. Therefore, in this case, it is our opinion that by
introducing a means plus function recitation into the present
application, subsequent to its filing date, appellants have,
in effect, added to the original disclosure equivalents of the
ribs. Thus, as we see it, this late introduction of a means
plus function recitation adds new matter (equivalents) to the
application since the means plus function recitation lacks a
descriptive basis as to the inclusion of any equivalents in
the original disclosure.
Claims 123 through 127, 132, and 133 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007