Appeal No. 1999-2406
Application No. 08/825,256
tension of the coating solution, in the context of solving the
problems described in the specification at pages 1-3. In this
regard, the originally filed specification is replete with
written description explaining that the surface tension of the
coating causes problems in terms of achieving uniformity of the
coating (page 2) and that the present invention seeks to
overcome this problem by reducing the surface tension of the
coating solution with forces tending to cancel out the surface
tension of the solution (pages 3-5).
The examiner argues that "the term 'reduction' would merely
indicate that the surface tension would be decreased to some
extent" and that "there is no indication" in the originally
filed specification that "canceling out of the surface tension"
could be equated with the term "minimization." (Examiner's
answer, page 4.) As stated by the appellants (reply brief,
pages 6-7), however, the examiner's argument does not take into
account what one skilled in the relevant art would have
understood from the entire disclosure. When the originally
filed specification is evaluated in its entirety, it is our
judgment that the specification would have reasonably conveyed
to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellants had
possession of the added material.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007