Appeal No. 2002-0185
Application 08/902,171
queried by the examiner. Also, as noted above, an ipsis verbis
disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the written description
requirement of section 112. Id. Hence, we determine that an
adequate written description exists to support the phrase “which
are not reinforced with an additional strip of material”.
We therefore reverse this rejection.
II. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 2-4 because they are based
upon a fluctuating currency value, for example, the U.S. dollar
as valued in 1997 (answer, page 3).
We find that dependent claims 2-4 are improper in view of
the fact that these claims do not further limit independent claim
1 because they do not further limit the structure or material of
the garment defined by claim 1, an article of manufacture within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. In this context, we agree with
the examiner’s rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
We therefore affirm this rejection.
III. CONCLUSION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(written description) is reversed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is
affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007