Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-
64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Edwards,
568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978); In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner argues that the appellant’s originally-filed
disclosure does not provide adequate written descriptive support
for the highly rigid panel “being formed of a single material
layer” as recited in claims 1 and 23.1 The appellant argues that
the appellant’s figure 4, which is a greatly enlarged cross
sectional view (specification, page 4, line 11) and has cross
hatching lines extending from exterior surface 36 to interior
surface 38 of panel 34, shows that panel 34 is a single material
layer (brief, page 8). In response, the examiner argues that
1 This limitation was added (amendment filed August 22,
2001, paper no. 7) in response to the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kinuta in view of Takada (office action
mailed June 12, 2001, paper no. 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007