Appeal No. 1999-2316
Application No. 08/640,262
Indeed, “Category 5” is a very well known term used
in the relevant trade; those familiar with the term
“Category 5” will recognize that it defines certain
electrical performance criteria for cable. ([S]ee
Declaration of John Mottine, at ¶ 4, filed
concurrently with Appellants’ Response dated June 2,
1998).
According to appellants (brief, pages 11 through 15), MPEP
§ 608.01(v) permits the use of trade names (e.g., Category 5)
in patent applications. Appellants additionally argue (brief,
page 15) that:
As set forth in the Declaration of John Mottine
at, e.g., paragraphs 5 and 6, cables identified as
“Category 5” cables were known to the inventors and
to others in the art prior to April 30, 1996 (the
filing date of the present application). In view of
the general knowledge of Category 5 cable at the
time of filing of the present application,
Appellants submit that the originally filed
application contained sufficient disclosure to
permit those skilled in the art to fully practice
Appellants’ claimed invention.
In response to appellants’ arguments, the examiner agrees
with appellants’ argument that the term “Category 5” may be
used in the application, however, the examiner disagrees with
appellants’ arguments concerning the sufficiency of the
disclosure because (answer, page 10):
[A]ccording to MPEP 608.01 (p), page 600-65, Rev. 3,
July 1997, it states that “Mere reference to another
application, patent or publication is not an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007