Appeal No. 2002-1626 Page 4
Application No. 09/287,135
when the number of electronic chip components in said hopper
decreases, shortening the stroke range of the aligning path forming member.
17. The method according to claim 16, wherein the step of shortening the
stroke range of the aligning path forming member shortens the stroke range
when the number of remaining electronic chip components decreases to a
predetermined number.
18. The method according to claim 16, wherein the step of shortening the
stroke range of the aligning path forming member shortens the stroke range
continuously as the number of remaining electronic chip components decreases.
19. The method according to claim 16, wherein the step of shortening the
stroke range of the aligning path forming member shortens the stroke range
when the number of remaining electronic chip components decreases to about
1/5 of the capacity of the hopper.
The examiner's basis for the written description rejection
The examiner rejected claims 7, 8 and 16 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in
such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
appellants, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention.2 The sole basis for this rejection as set forth on page 5 of the answer was
that "[t]he mechanism for varying the stroke range depending on the remaining number
2 The description requirement exists in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 independent of the
enablement (how to make and how to use) requirement. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222
USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985); In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194
USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1977); and In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA
1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007