Appeal No. 2002-0933
Application No. 09/325,944
§ 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written
description requirement will not be sustained.2
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
7, 9, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Rague. On page 9 of the brief, appellant has indicated with
regard to independent claim 1 on appeal that Rague does not teach
the locking member set forth in the claim. According to the
examiner, Rague shows a locking member (37).
Our review of the Rague patent, particularly Figures 4 and
5, and the specification thereof beginning at column 6, line 46,
et seq., reveals that member (37) of connector (34) on transport
2 In this instance, we note however that the examiner has
correctly observed that 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) mandates that the
claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the
remainder of the specification and that the terms and phrases
used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in
the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims
may be ascertained by reference to the description. While
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007