Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
U.S. 933 (1987). See also In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297, 36 USPQ2d
1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d
132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972).
In the present case, descriptive support within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the subject matter of
claims 13 and 14 is found at column 1, lines 53-76, and column 5,
lines 6-22 of U.S. Patent 6,213,993 B1, which issued from parent
application 08/659,858. In addition, descriptive support for
claim 15 is found at column 4, lines 19-23, descriptive support
for claim 16 is found at column 4, lines 10-15, descriptive
support for claim 17 is found in patent claim 5, and descriptive
support for claims 18 and 19 is found at column 5, lines 43-55.
Hence, claims 13-19 are entitled to the filing date of the ‘858
application and Zacharias PCT ‘238 is not a reference under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) with respect to these claims.
The examiner’s contention on pages 6 and 7 of the answer
that appellants’ claims 13-19 are not entitled to the benefit of
an earlier filing date because the specification does not include
a proper CIP declaration is noted. To the extent appellants have
not complied with any of the formal requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 120, any such informality should be remedied upon return of the
present case to the Technology Center.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007