Ex Parte DEBLOCK et al - Page 7




             Appeal No. 2002-0033                                                               Page 7                
             Application No. 09/372,020                                                                               


                    The original specification provided the following:                                                
             (1) the dome of a tubular skylight includes an exterior surface having a prismatic portion               
             to reflect light downwardly into the tube (specification, p. 2);                                         
             (2) the generally hemispherical dome portion 60 includes an interior surface 70 and an                   
             exterior surface 72 wherein the exterior surface includes a prismatic surface or portion                 
             68 and a nonprismatic surface or portion 69 (specification, p. 5);                                       
             (3) the prismatic portion 68 includes a plurality of grooves 71 that are molded, cut, or                 
             otherwise formed in the exterior surface 74 (specification, p. 5); and                                   
             (4) the above description is that of a preferred embodiment of the invention                             
             (specification, p. 9).                                                                                   


                    In our view, the above-noted portions of the original specification provide                       
             sufficient written description support for claims 18 to 34 which omit the limitation that                
             the prismatic portion is provided on the exterior surface.  In that regard, the original                 
             disclosure does not establish the prismatic portion being provided on the exterior                       
             surface as an "essential element" of the invention that must be included in the claims.                  
             The examiner's apparent position that a disclosure of only one embodiment of the                         
             invention makes that embodiment critical or essential is without merit.  That position                   
             would appear to prohibit all claims in all applications that are broader than the original               
             claims.                                                                                                  








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007