Appeal No. 2002-0455 7
Application No. 09/123,620
In addition, the examiner should consider whether instant claims 9-11
have adequate descriptive support in the specification. In reviewing the
specification, we were unable to find express support for the limitations of these
claims, and we note that when the claims were first submitted, Appellant did not
point to support for them in any specific part of the specification. Literal support,
of course, is not required, see Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d
1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000), but the disclosure must
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in
possession of the invention. See id. The examiner should consider whether this
requirement has been met with respect to claims 9-11.
Summary
The examiner has not carried the burden of showing, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the claimed method would have been obvious to a person of
skill in the art. We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007