Appeal No. 2002-1823
Application 09/575,551
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
Claim 65 recites a processing method comprising, inter alia,
the steps of engaging an article with an engagement head by
moving the engagement head in a “first direction,” and carrying
the article on a transfer robot to a process chamber by moving
the transfer robot “in a second direction, perpendicular to the
first direction.”
The examiner submits that the appellants’ specification
lacks support for the limitation that the second direction is
“perpendicular” to the first direction, and thus fails to comply
with the written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1. In the
examiner’s view, “[a]lthough it is true that this feature is
shown in figures 1, 13 and 14, it is not shown in figure 49 or
otherwise disclosed with respect to the embodiment of figures 40-
49 to which the claims are limited” (final rejection, page 2).
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventors had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of
literal support in the specification for the claim language.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007