Appeal No. 1999-0427
Application 08/782,272
such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the
inventor(s), at the time the application was
filed, had possession of the claimed invention
[answer, third page].
This rejection relates to the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, the examiner focuses on the
recitation in claim 1 that the microchannels are at least 10
times longer and at least twice as deep as they are wide. The
examiner notes that the specification indicated that the
microchannels could be 50-200 microns deep, 6,000-30,000
microns long and have a width of 42 microns. The examiner
indicates that no specific relationship of length, height and
width is disclosed. The examiner notes that the relationships
recited in claim 1 encompass dimensions which are outside of
the ranges described in the specification.
Appellants argue that the length and depth ratio
limitations were added to the claims to avoid the disclosure
of Nakayama. Appellants also argue that the original claims
had no restrictions on the length or depth ratios with respect
to width so that the original claims supported any length or
depth ratio, and the amended claims merely restrict the
language of the original claims [brief, pages 2-3].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007