Appeal No. 2003-0124
Application No. 09/487,832
The Examiner argues that the original disclosure teaches
that the detector equipment (40) comprises ferrite core aerials
(60). The Examiner argues that the ferrite core aerials are
disclosed to form part of the detector equipment. The disclosure
does not recite or teach separate elements for the detector
apparatus and the ferrite core aerial and does not teach a
relationship between these elements. See page 3 of the
Examiner's final action.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection fails to
consider the disclosure as a whole. In particular, Appellants
argue that the original claims teach that the detector apparatus
is a separate element from the ferrite core aerial. See page 14
of Appellants' brief.
Upon our review of the Examiner's rejection, it is unclear
to us whether the Examiner is basing the rejection on the fact
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to
make and use the invention or that the Appellants had failed to
properly describe their invention. Our reviewing court has made
it clear that written description and enablement are separate
requirements under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Vas-
Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007