Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
various elements evidence that the disclosure fails to tie all
the elements together in the manner claimed.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 67-77) that the
examiner has misrepresented the disclosure, disregarding elements
that are relevant to the claimed interconnections. Appellant
reproduces portions of the disclosure to support this position.
However, the reproduced sections do not indicate exactly how the
various claimed elements are interconnected.
Appellant contends (Reply Brief, pages 90-97 and 106) that
the examiner's written description rejection is really an
enablement issue as the interconnections deal with how to make
the invention. The claim language "in response to" establishes
certain interconnections between the claimed elements, and those
interconnections need support in the disclosure. If the elements
are disclosed, but with no particular configuration, or in a
different configuration than what is claimed, then there is no
written description. There may be an enablement issue as well,
but the examiner is correct in rejecting the claims under the
written description portion of § 112, first paragraph.
Appellant's arguments specific to claims 105, 177, 190, and 191
We first note that appellant points to several pages
scattered throughout the 576 page specification to show support
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007