Ex Parte Cotter - Page 6




          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