Appeal No. 1998-2823
Application No. 08/458,010
does not pose a written description problem.
With regard to the terminology “insulation means” and
“replaceable elements,” the examiner acknowledges, supra, that
the original disclosure describes an air gap insulation means
and
a replaceable window and sleeve. Further, it is readily
apparent that the closed air space or air gap 25 which is
described as “providing a layer of insulative air around the
probe” (specification, p. 7) constitutes an “insulation means”
and that the window and sleeve which are described as being
readily removable and replaceable (id. at p. 5) constitute
“replaceable elements.” Thus, here again the disclosure of
the application as originally filed would reasonably convey to
the artisan that appellants had possession at that time of
“insulation means” and “replaceable elements” as recited in
the claims.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 8, 9,
15, 17, 20 through 22, 26, 27 and 32 through 51.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007