Appeal No. 1999-0063
Application No. 08/602,366
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the
view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 16-25. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-
25 under the “written description” requirement of the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The function of the written
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 is to ensure that the inventor has possession, as of the
filing date of the application relied on, of the specific
subject matter later claimed by him. In re Wertheim, 541 F.
2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
The genesis of the Examiner’s assertion of the lack of
compliance with the statutory written description requirement
was the submission of new claims 16-25 which added the
language “travel request signal” which, in the Examiner’s
view, has no support in the original disclosure. We agree
with Appellant (Brief, pages 9-11; Reply Brief, pages 5 and
6), however, that the Examiner’s position is without support
on the record. Initially, we find to be correct Appellant’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007