Appeal No. 2003-0607
Application 09/532,968
wherein the one-ended reduction in the
length is greater than a reduction in length
of an immediate prior layer from a second to
the immediate prior layer.
Appeal Brief, pages 3-4. Appellants state that the above
underlined portion was added by amendment “to clarify what was
already implicitly, if not explicitly, recited by the claim.”
Id., page 4.
According to the examiner, there is no support in the
specification for the above underlined language. See Examiner’s
Answer, Paper No. 12, mailed September 23, 2002, page 4. In
particular, it is the examiner’s position that he was unable
to find either explicit or implicit support for this claim
limitation and, further, that the drawings suggest the opposite
of this limitation, i.e., that the reduction is less, not
greater. Id., page 4. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that
the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as appropriate.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had
possession of the later claimed subject matter at the time of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007