Appeal No. 2004-0051
Application No. 09/746,795
merely expounded upon the unremarkable proposition that a broad
claim is invalid when the entirety of the specification clearly
indicates that the invention is of a much narrower scope.” Cooper
Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc., supra.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the originally filed disclosure does not support the
two species required by claim 18 on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 for failure to comply with the
written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007