Appeal No. 2004-0131
Application No. 08/462,531
Therefore, the issues in this appeal are:
I. Whether there is lack of written description support for
claims 2-4, 6-9, 15-22, and 24-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
II. Whether the specification is enabling for claims 2-4, 6-9,
15-22, and 24-32, under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
III. Whether claims 2-4, 6-9, 15-22, and 24-32 are indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
IV. Whether claims 2-4, 6-9, 15-22, and 24-32 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hlustik in view of Pasternak or Novitske, and further in
view of Stewart.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph, Rejection (written
description)
The Federal Circuit has held that adequate written
description support for an applicant’s claim limitation exists
even though it was not set forth “in haec verba” in the
specification. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649,
1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989). There is no requirement under Section 112
that the subject matter of a claim be described literally in the
disclosure. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796
(CCPA 1971).
Also, in the case of In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ
3 See page 4 of the answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007