Ex Parte SCHMOOCK - Page 3


              Appeal No. 2001-1818                                                                                         
              Application 09/048,533                                                                                       
                     of the finished product (i.e. the claimed foil) is necessarily devoid of                              
                     defects/scratches/pin windows.  This is particularly questionable in view of the                      
                     first full paragraph on page 9 which refers to a ‘smaller number of pin windows’                      
                     when the protective coating is applied to the metallic film.  Reference to a                          
                     ‘smaller number’ of pin windows implies that some pin windows are present and,                        
                     in view of page 6, lines 21-23, pin windows are defects.  (Examiner’s Answer,                         
                     page 3, line 15 - page 4, line 6).                                                                    
                     The Appellant, on the other hand, distinguishes the product at various stages of                      
              manufacture, asserting that an intermediate product (defined as the post-metallization                       
              but pre-protective layer product) is the product that is necessarily devoid of defects.                      
              (Appeal Brief, page 6, line 7 - page 7, line 1).                                                             
                     The Examiner points to claim 1 and states that claim 1 is drawn to a finished                         
              product (the product comprising a substrate, a metallic film, and a protective layer), and                   
              states that claim 1:                                                                                         
                     requires the metallic film of the finished product to be “devoid of defects”.  The                    
                     examiner maintains the position that the original disclosure does not provide                         
                     adequate support for the claimed foil which comprises a substrate, a metallic film                    
                     that is devoid of defects, and a protective layer covering the metallic film.                         
                     (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 6-10).                                                              
                    The Appellant in reply asserts that the metallic film need not forever be free from                   
              defects, and does not preclude a film thus formed from later developing defects in                           
              subsequent processing.   (Reply Brief, page 2, lines 13-21).                                                 
                     A rejection for lack of support in the specification is a rejection under the written                 
              description requirement of the first paragraph of §112.  See Pall Corp. v. Micron                            
              Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1219, 36 USPQ2d 1225, 1230-1231 (Fed. Cir. 1995).                           
              The Applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of                    
              the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.  The invention is, for                 




                                                            3                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007