Appeal No. 2001-2186 Page 5
Application No. 08/674,865
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 14, 16, and 19-23.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Written Description
The Examiner has rejected claim 24 as failing to meet the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The Examiner’s rejection rests on the basis that there is no
support for disposing the electrode connecting terminals substantially equidistantly between one
of the support column portions and one of the extension portions as claimed (Answer at 4).
The specification does not use the words “substantially equidistantly between one of the
support column portions and one of the extension portions” to describe the location of the
terminals. As the specification does not use the same terminology as the claims, the question to
be answered is whether the concept of equidistance is conveyed by the original disclosure. See In
re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ 331, 336 (CCPA 1973). This concept is conveyed
by Figures 1-3 and the specification at pages 15-19. The symmetrical arrangement of the
terminals (Fig. 2), support column portions (specification at 15, ll. 11-15; Fig. 3) and extensions
(specification at 20, ll. 9-11; Fig. 3) and the symmetric nature of the branching current paths
(specification at 17, l. 16 to 18, l. 10) together convey the claimed equidistant nature of the
terminal position.
The subject matter of claim 24 is adequately supported by the original disclosure in a
manner meeting the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007