Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 9
Application No. 09/108,687
We address the following points of contention between the examiner and the
appellants:
• first dielectric
• second air chamber.
1. First Dielectric
The examiner asserts, "[a]pplicant has not adequately described how the first air
chamber 'forms a first dielectric around each connection section and wherein an
impedance of each signal contact is improved'. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The
appellants argue, "[o]n page 3, line 7 [of the specification] it is stated that 'the
impedance of the signal contacts 7 is improved by providing the housing 6 with an air
chamber 10 at the front side of the connector 2.' The construction of the housing 6 is
then described." (Reply Br. at 2.)
"’Although [the appellants] do[] not have to describe exactly the subject matter
claimed, . . . the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.’" Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting In re Gosteli, 872
F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). "[T]he test for sufficiency
of support . . . is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon 'reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007