Appeal No. 2000-2134
Application No. 08/868,663
reconsidered, but we still find that the originally filed
disclosure has written description support for a multiple of
40 milliseconds, and not a “multiple of 10 milliseconds.”
Appellant can not rely on the Golden patent to provide written
description support for the now claimed delay (request, page 2).
With respect to claim 28, we can not find any discernible
error in our decision based upon appellant’s comments (request,
pages 2 and 3) concerning this claim. The referenced portion of
the specification does not provide written description support
for the subject matter set forth in this claim.
Turning to claim 29, appellant argues (request, page 3) that
“delay circuits to provide a delay are well known in the art and
are continually demonstrated in the prior art as well as in
patent applications by blocks rather than specific circuits as is
well known to anyone with even a small modicum of knowledge in
the art.” As indicated in our decision, neither the prior art
discussed in the brief nor the skill in the art can take the
place of a demonstration by the appellant that he was in
possession of the now claimed subject matter on the filing date
of the subject application.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007