Appeal No. 2001-2423
Application 08/931,253
(page 5, lines 6-7) and figure 2 indicate that the weld, or other
material which fixes the end of the rod to the end of the sheath,
forms a cap which closes the end of the sheath and electrically
connects the rod and the sheath. As shown in figure 2, the weld
begins at the end of the sheath and extends beyond that end. If
the sheath itself had a closed end as argued by the appellant,
then the rod, which would be on the inside of the closed end,
would be on a side of the closed end opposite the side on which
the weld is formed. The specification does not indicate that a
weld on one side of a closed end could bond the sheath to a rod
on the other side of the closed end.
Hence, we interpret “an inner face of a closed end of said
sheath” in claim 1 as referring to the inner face of the weld or
other material which closes the end of the sheath. Consequently,
we find adequate written descriptive support for that phrase in
the appellant’s originally-filed specification. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejections over Sparrow,
alone or with additional prior art
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007