Appeal No. 1999-0956
Application No. 08/584,084
to mechanisms which are recited separately in claims does not
prevent claims from being sufficiently supported by the
disclosure, the governing consideration is not double inclusion,
but rather what is a reasonable construction of claim language).
In our view, when the claim language is given a reasonable
construction, the original disclosure both enables and provides
descriptive support for the claimed subject matter. Hence, the
examiner’s third reason in support of the rejection also is not
well taken.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
rejection of claims 28-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The anticipation rejection
In rejecting independent claim 28 as being anticipated by
Labombarde, the examiner has determined that Labombarde discloses
“a device for folding a work piece” (answer, page 11), and that
the reference device comprises means for supporting, moving,
guiding, and folding the work piece that correspond to the
various means called for in the body of claim 28. With respect
to the preamble recitations of claim 28, the examiner states the
following:
. . . [I]t has been held that a preamble is denied the
effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a
structure and the portion of the claim following the
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007