Appeal No. 2001-2423
Application 08/931,253
Accordingly, we limit our discussion of the affirmed rejections
to claim 1. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ
67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ
259, 260 (CCPA 1972); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that “an inner face of a closed end of
said sheath” in claim 1 lacks adequate written descriptive
support in the appellant’s originally-filed specification
(answer, page 4).3 The examiner argues that the appellant’s
figure 2 shows what appears to be a cylindrical sheath having two
open ends, one of which is sealed by a cap-shaped weld which, as
stated in the appellant’s specification (page 5, lines 6-7),
fixes the rod to the sheath and forms a conductive junction
(answer, pages 6-7).
The appellant argues that in the appellant’s figure 2 the
upper end of the sheath itself is closed and the rod abuts the
inner surface of that closed end (supplemental brief, page 9;
reply brief, pages 1-2).
The appellant’s specification does not support the
appellant’s interpretation of claim 1. The specification
3
3 The pages of the examiner’s answer have been renumbered
sequentially.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007