Appeal No. 2000-1929
Application No. 08/019,297
Appellants acknowledge that the priority applications are identical or
nearly identical to the instant specification. See Paper No. 2, filed February 18,
1993, page 2 (amending the specification to insert “This application is a division
of application Serial No. 07/876,297, . . . which is a continuation of application
Serial No. 07/117,937, . . . which is a continuation of application Serial No.
06/785,638, . . . which is a continuation of application Serial No. 06/558,109, filed
December 5, 1983.”); Appeal Brief, page 42 (“Appellants claim priority to British
application GB 83/24800, filed September 15, 1983. The disclosure of GB
83/24800 is nearly identical to the instant specification.”).
We have concluded that none of the rejected claims finds both an
enabling disclosure and an adequate written description in the instant
specification. Since Appellants have pointed to no disclosures in the earlier-filed
applications that are not also in the instant application, our conclusion that the
instant specification does not enable or adequately describe the instant claims
applies equally to the identical or nearly identical parent applications. The instant
claims are therefore not entitled to priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 or 120, and Di
Marzo Veronese is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Since Appellants do not dispute that Di Marzo Veronese identically
discloses the products and methods of the instant claims, and since Di Marzo
Veronese is prior art under § 102(b), we affirm the rejection for anticipation.
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007