Appeal No. 1998-3271
Application No. 08/563,156
art in light of the appellants’ specification and the prior art,
fails to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Particularly,
the examiner has not explained why the appellants’ figures would
not have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that
claims 6, 20 and 32 merely require that the feed block is on the
side of the tip surface opposite the web. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection of claims 5-30 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that “[t]he specification fails to
disclose the coating apparatus is comprised of a feed block
having a base portion and a taper portion including a tip portion
and it is unclear how these elements relate to the back block and
doctor block set forth by appellant in the specification”
(answer, page 4).
“To comply with the description requirement it is not
necessary that the application describe the claimed invention in
ipsis verbis, In re Lukach, 58 CCPA 1233, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ
795 (1971); all that is required is that it reasonably convey to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007