Appeal No. 2001-0302
Application No. 08/635,614
the original claims or specification for the amendment to line
7 of claim 1[5] . . . . The terms/language in the claim must be
defined in the remainder of the specification, M.P.E.P.
608.01(i), 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).”
In our view, support for the invention as presently claimed6
is found, among other places, in the paragraph spanning pages
23 and 24 of the specification. Thus, we conclude that the
ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that appellants were
in possession of the invention as presently claimed at the time
the application was filed. It follows that we shall not sustain
the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
based on the description requirement.
Insofar as the enablement requirement is concerned, the
dispositive issue is whether appellants’ disclosure, considering
the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of
appellants’ application, would have enabled a person of such
5
5The questioned language added by amendment describes the torque
limiter as “having a diametric direction defined by a diameter of
the torque limiter.”
6
6E.g., a torque setting member (51) that is subject to
deformation along a diametric direction defined by the diameter
of the torque limiter (11) as a result of being fitted in between
the outer circumference of the steering shaft (3c, 3d) and the
inner circumference of the gear (10).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007