Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
examiner states that there is no description in the original
specification to support the claimed term "a plurality of power
sources connected to said chamber." The examiner refers to Figures
3 and 5 for the showing that no power sources are connected to the
chamber, but they are "enclosed or associated therewith." Id.
Again as correctly argued by appellants, one of ordinary skill
in the art knew how to use two power sources and connect them to
the chamber (Brief, page 6; see also the specification, page 4).
The examiner apparently has construed "connected to said chamber"
as meaning directly connected to the chamber. However, the
examiner's construction is not reasonable in light of the
specification, as shown by Figures 3 and 5. See In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In view of
this claim construction, we determine that the subject matter in
question was described in the original specification in such a
manner that would have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill
in the art that appellants were in possession of the claimed
invention. See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ
465, 467 (CCPA 1978).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
not met the initial burden of establishing noncompliance with the
written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007