Appeal No. 1998-0820
Application No. 08/274,771
itself that the patent specification clearly conveys to
persons of ordinary skill in the art that Appellant had
invented what is claimed.
We note that we have addressed all of the Examiner's
arguments relating to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-8
under 35 U.S.C.§ 112, first paragraph. We will not sustain
the rejection for the reasons set out above.
In regard to the issue of whether the amendment to the
specification is new matter under 35 U.S.C.§ 132, we find that
because the amendment does not affect the claims before us, it
is a petitionable issue and not an appropriate matter for
decision by the Board.
For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and the rejection of
claims 1-4 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C.§ 112, first paragraph.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007