Appeal No. 2003-2113 Page 7
Application No. 09/712,582
Since claims 3, 6 and 9 on appeal are original claims, nothing more is required in
this case for compliance with the description requirement of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. See In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 1391, 177 USPQ 396, 397,
supplemental opinion, 480 F.2d 879, 879-80, 178 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1973) and In re
Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914, 178 USPQ 620, 624 (CCPA 1973). Moreover, as set forth
above in our determination of the scope of claims under appeal, claim 3 is not drawn to
both a straight wire and a straight wire mesh but is drawn to a straight wire or a straight
wire mesh; claim 6 is not drawn to the wire being both a straight wire and a twisted wire
or the mesh being a twisted wire but to the straight wire being formed by a plurality of
twisted stands; and claim 9 is not drawn to both end caps and a cap portion but to end
caps each having a cap portion.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3,
6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
A case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of the references to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007