Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
claims 6 and 16 subsequent to the filing of the application.
With the inclusion of the language "at least", the clear
inference is that the device of claim 6 can be more than just one
of the specified entities, and the strap of claim 16 can be
comprised of more than just one of the specified materials.
However, this is not what one skilled in the art would have
understood from a reading of the original specification (page 3)
wherein it is clear that the strap is of one selected material
and the device is one selected entity. Thus, the addition of "at
least" adds new matter to the application, and the description
rejection of claims 6 through 10, 16 and 17 under U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is sound and sustained.
The argument of appellants (brief, pages 6 and 7) fails to
persuade us that the new matter rejection of claims 6 and 16 is
unsound.
As to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking descriptive support in the original
disclosure, we conclude that there is descriptive support for
this broad claim. The examiner appears to be of the view that
the omission of a "securing means" in claim 19 establishes a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007