Appeal No. 2002-0009
Application 09/032,554
examiner contends (answer, page 3) that the original disclosure
“does not disclose a back pressure chamber defined on a side of
the base plate of the non-orbiting scroll.”
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22,
mailed February 22, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the above-noted rejection. Appellants' arguments thereagainst
are found in the brief (Paper No. 20, filed January 8, 2001) and
reply brief (Paper No. 23, filed April 23, 2001).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the written description issue
raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants'
specification and claims, and the respective viewpoints advanced
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we have made the determination that the examiner's rejection of
the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, will
not be sustained. Our reasons for this determination follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007