Appeal No. 1998-2729
Application 08/220,851
The rejections of claims under non-obviousness-type and
obviousness-type double patenting have been rendered moot via
the execution of a terminal disclaimer (paper no. 24).
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief, and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure in this application does comply with
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated on
page 3 of the brief that all pending claims stand or fall
together. Therefore, we will treat claim 19 as the
representative claim.
Initially, we note that the Examiner’s reasoning for lack
of “support” for the claimed invention herein, implicitly
refers to the written description portion of this statutory
provision. In re Higbee, 527 F.2d 1405, 1406, 188 USPQ 488,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007