Appeal No. 1999-1113
Application No. 08/888,354
original specification. The only support for claim 7 consists of the amended specification
text introduced in paper 13.”
A rejection which fails to mention what portion or portions of the claim are
considered to lack support is unreasonable, and hence defective, on its face.
Nevertheless, appellants provide a thorough analysis of the claim, at pages 6-7 of the brief,
indicating where, in the original specification, each portion finds support. The examiner
completely ignores appellants’ argument, failing even to refer to the rejection of claim 7 in
the response section of the answer.
As best as can be gleaned from the examiner’s comments in the final rejection and
in the action of October 1, 1997, the examiner appears to take the view that any terms that
were not present verbatim in the original disclosure can have no support when attempting
to amend the specification to include such terms. The examiner specifically mentions no
support for the “feed means” now recited in claim 7. However, as explained by appellants,
at page 7 of the brief, while the original disclosure did not use the term, “feed means,” it is
very clear that the originally disclosed paddle wheel which forms the control means for
retaining grain in the chamber is a “feed means.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007