Appeal No. 2002-0933
Application No. 09/325,944
We have reviewed the specification and drawings of the
present application (particularly pages 1, 2 and 14-18 of the
specification) and, based on that review, share appellant's
opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the
language of claims 1 and 9 clear and definite. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as being based on a
specification that, as originally filed, fails to provide written
descriptive support for the invention claimed, is premised on the
examiner's view that the specification does not adequately
describe the conduit of the afterloader in relation to the drive
member thereof. Again, we share appellant's view that a review
of the specification of the present application, particularly
pages 1, 2 and 14 through 18, would provide one of ordinary skill
in the art with a reasonably clear understanding of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007