Appeal No. 2003-0091
Application No. 09/298,640
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description),
rejection of claims 22 through 36
In the examiner’s view (see page 4 in the answer), the
appellant’s specification fails to comply with the written
description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1, with respect to the
recitation in independent claim 22, from which claims 23 through
36 depend, that the penetration resistant sheet is secured
between the glass sheet and the transparent sheet “without the
use of double sided tape.”
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 inventor 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. In
re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
Id.
examiner withdrew this rejection in view of the arguments
advanced in the main brief (see page 10 in the answer).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007