Ex Parte KEITH et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2002-0396                                                          
          Application No. 08/331,280                                                    


               The examiner argues that the declaration fails to overcome               
          Pray because to do so the declaration needs to show not just a                
          braid having a variable pick count, but a braid having fewer                  
          picks per inch at the proximal end than at the distal end, since              
          this is what is recited in the appellants’ claim 1 (answer,                   
          page 6).                                                                      
               The examiner’s argument is that the declaration must show                
          written descriptive support for the claimed invention under 35                
          U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.  A showing under 37 CFR § 131,                 
          however, does not have to show adequate support for the claimed               
          invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  See In re Clarke, 356 F.2d 987,             
          991, 148 USPQ 665, 669 (CCPA 1966); In re Hostettler, 356 F.2d                
          562, 565, 148 USPQ 514, 516 (CCPA 1966).  All that is required of             
          a Rule 131 declaration is that it must show possession, before                
          the effective date of the reference, of subject matter which at               
          least would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the             
          art so much of the claimed invention as the reference shows.  See             
          In re Rainer, 390 F.2d 771, 774, 156 USPQ 334, 336 (CCPA 1968);               














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

Last modified: November 3, 2007