Appeal No. 1998-0256
Application No. 08/395,768
avoid infringement (brief, page 14). However, claims can be
no broader than a supporting disclosure. For the reasons set
forth above, appellant’s narrow disclosure limits claim
breadth. See Gentry Gallery v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473,
1479, 45 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Broad claim 28
is simply not descriptively supported by the original
specification, and the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, is clearly sound.
The argument advanced by appellant in the brief (pages 6
through 14) does not persuade us that the examiner erred in
rejecting the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Contrary to the view advocated that one skilled in
the art would clearly recognize that appellant invented what
is claimed (brief, pages 9 through 11 and 13), we explained
and gave a reasonable basis above why this would certainly not
be the case. That one locking element (undercut) may be
sufficient (brief, page 11), as argued, is simply not
determinative of the description requirement issue in this
appeal, as the Barker case, supra, indicates.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007