Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
Applying these precepts to the present application, we find
that, when the claim language pointed to by the examiner on pages
3 and 4 of the answer is read in light of the present application
disclosure as such would be interpreted by the hypothetical
person possessing ordinary skill in the art, such claim language
finds clear support in the specification and application
disclosure when such are considered as a whole. The examiner’s
apparent belief (final rejection, page 11) that the entire
specification need not be considered because such would be “a
serious burden to the examiner,” is contrary to both the law and
PTO policy.
As for the examiner’s comment in the paragraph bridging
pages 8 and 9 of the answer, that the drawings of the present
application (particularly, Figures 2A and 9) do not show the
claimed features noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as is required by 37 CFR § 1.83(a), we note that
such an oversight by the appellant would normally give rise to an
objection, not a rejection. This is especially true in the
situation before us on appeal, wherein the specification and
drawings of the present application (when fully considered)
clearly provide support for the invention as now claimed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007