Interference No. 105,028
103 or 203, with wafer being held, would look as shown in Attachment B and not as represented
in the Bacchi motion at page 8, 10 or 11.” The second statement merely reflects wishful thinking
that is not supported by evidence. The first statement, however, in the absence of any
explanation, is a misrepresentation. It refers to “the Holbrooks finger within the scope of the
Holbrooks application.” In that context, use of the definite article “the” in the first instance
implies that Holbrooks is referring to a specifically described embodiment and not some non-
described embodiment which may happen to fall within the scope of what is claimed. Also, the
statement refers to “within the scope of the Holbrooks application” and not “within the scope of
a Holbrooks claim,” which again implies specific description in the application’s disclosure
rather than any non-described embodiment which may happen to fall within the scope of a claim.
In any event, a broad or generic term does not provide written description for all specific
embodiments that may fall within the scope of that term. Even assuming that Holbrooks meant
to say “a finger structure within the scope of what is claimed,” that does not effectively rebut the
charge of lack of written description.
RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007