Appeal No. 2004-0140
Application No. 10/154,729
whether the provisional application would have enabled one of ordinary skill in the
art to carry out the bonding step before the forming step, i.e., whether the claimed
invention is broader than the enabling disclosure in the provisional application.
That issue, however, is not before us.
As for the issue before us, i.e., written description, as discussed above the
appellants’ provisional application provides adequate written descriptive support for
the forming and bonding steps in the appellants’ claims, and there is no dispute as to
whether the provisional application provides adequate written descriptive support
for the other elements of the appellants’ claims. Hence, the finding supported by the
record is that the appellants are entitled to the filing date of their provisional
application and that, therefore, Kulkarni, which was filed after the appellants’
provisional application, is not prior art. Accordingly, I would reverse the rejections.
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
TJO/kis
-17-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007