Appeal No. 2001-2188
Application No. 09/085,300
U.S.C. § 112 in establishing a basis for the rejection. The
Examiner’s assertion of lack of compliance with the “written
description” requirement was a result of amendments to the
original disclosure and claims as detailed at pages 2-4 of the
Answer. The function of the description requirement of the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to ensure that the inventor
has possession, as of the filing date of the application relied
on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
Initially, the Examiner contends that the amendment to pages
3 and 6 of the specification relating to the mathematical symbol
used to signify the relationship between the diameter dB of the
gas intake orifice and the pump current IP resulted in an
improper attempt to add new matter to the specification. In
making this amendment, in which the symbol “Œ,” i.e., a single
wavy line over two horizontal lines, used in the original
disclosure was changed to two wavy lines over a single horizontal
line, Appellant attempted to conform the present disclosure to
the symbol used in the corresponding German priority
applications.
We agree with Appellant that the symbol change in question
is merely an attempt to clarify any possible ambiguity between
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007