Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 10
Application No. 09/108,687
subject matter.'" Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227
USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Application sufficiency under §112, first
paragraph, must be judged as of the filing date [of the application].” Vas-Cath, 935
F.2d at 1566, 19 USPQ2d at 1119 (citing United States Steel Corp. v. Phillips
Petroleum Co., 865 F.2d 1247, 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, the section of the original specification referenced by the appellants
discloses that, "[i]n the female connector 2, 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." (Spec. at 3.) Furthermore, the assertion that "[a]ir is known to be a good
dielectric material," (Appeal Br. at 9), is uncontested. We are persuaded that the
disclosure and the knowledge reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellants had
possession of the claimed "first dielectric" as of the filing date of their application.
2. Second Air Chamber
The examiner asserts, "[a]pplicant has not adequately described how . . . the
'intermediate section of each signal contact includes a reduced height portion forming a
second air chamber.'" (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, "[t]he
description of this feature can be found on pg. 4, lines 1-10. " (Appeal Br. at 9-10.)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007