Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
(quoting Vasilkov-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116).
We have reviewed the specification at page 5 and we agree
with Appellant that a mention is made of a car speedometer as
well as an inertial navigation unit as examples of the types of
device which can be used to measure the velocity. However, the
specification leaves the possibility that the velocity can be of
any type of velocity and not necessarily restricted to absolute
velocity which is shown by the examples. Thus, the
specification states at page 5 that “[t]he network may then
either command the terminal to change to the macro-cellular
system or advise the terminal of its detected velocity, enabling
the terminal to make the decision about system change over.” We
note that this statement does not restrict itself to the
absolute velocity which is to be used in this determination of
the terminal change over. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that the specification lacks the support of the written
description which would enable an artisan to appreciate that the
inventor had possession of the invention regarding restricting
the system to the absolute velocity. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
for lack of written description.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007