Appeal No. 1998-2039
Application No. 08/326,806
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, but not the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1: Written Description
The examiner’s position is that while the specification
(page 13), as originally filed, describes the pressure of the
compressed gas to be “significantly lower” (“on the order of
several 10 kg/cm2”) than the pressure for injecting the resin
material in a “conventional injecting molding process” (“on the
order of several 100 kg/cm2”), there is no disclosure of the
subject matter of appealed claims 35 and 36, which recite: “the
pressure of the compressed gas injected into the synthetic resin
is less than the pressure of the synthetic resin which is
injected into the mold cavity.” (Answer, pages 5-6.)
We agree with the examiner on this issue. We find nothing
in the originally filed disclosure that would reasonably convey
to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellants, at the
time of filing, had possession of the subject matter of these
claims. The disclosure on page 13 of the specification refers
to specific pressure values of the compressed gas relative to
specific pressure values for injecting the resin material in
conventional injection molding processes. Accordingly, this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007