Appeal No. 2002-1593
Application 09/091,020
In determining that the appellants’ disclosure lacks written
descriptive support for the cam elements recited in the appealed
claims, the examiner asserts that “on the filing date, the entire
specification merely describes and the single figure merely shows
a diagram of the acceleration course” (final rejection, page 4).
Although the appellants’ drawing figure does not illustrate the
peripheral cam, the originally filed specification, including the
original claims, does provide literal support for the cam
limitations now contained in claims 7 through 19.4 Thus, the
disclosure of the application as originally filed would
reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellants had
possession at that time of the subject matter now recited in the
appealed claims.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (written description), rejection of claims 7 through
19.
4 The viewpoints expressed in the briefs and answer evidence
a dispute between the appellants and the examiner as to whether
the original disclosure includes the unamended specification
filed June 8, 1998 or the amended substitute specification filed
concurrently therewith. Although this matter is deserving of
resolution upon return of the application to the technology
center, it is of no moment in this appeal since both the
unamended and amended versions of the specification provide the
requisite support for the subject matter set forth in claims 7
through 19.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007