Appeal No. 2001-2079 3
Application No. 09/308,400
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the examiner that the rejection of the claims under §112,
first paragraph is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
As an initial matter, the appellants state that, “[t]he claims stand or fall together.”
See Brief, page 2. Accordingly, we select claim 13, the sole independent claim as
representative of the claimed subject matter and limit our consideration thereto. See 37
CFR § 1.192(7)(2000).
The Rejection under § 112
In a rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is sufficient if the
originally filed disclosure would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
appellants had possession of the concept of what is now claimed. In re Anderson, 471
F.2d 1237, 1240-41, 176 USPQ 331, 333 (CCPA 1973). There is no requirement
that the language of the claimed subject matter be present in the specification in ipsissima
verba.
It is the appellants’ position that, “none of the examples recited in Appellant’s
specification involve use of either a vegetable oil or an emulsifier. Moreover, nowhere
within the four corners of the specification is the use of either of these two compounds
suggested.” See Brief, page 3. We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007