Appeal No. 2004-0184
Application No. 09/837,824
literal support in the specification for the claim language. In
re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
Id.
In the present case, the disclosure of the application as
originally filed would not reasonably convey to the artisan that
the appellant had possession at that time of a water skipping
article comprising a body having a substantially elliptical outer
perimeter as is now recited in claims 1, 9 and 10, the three
independent claims on appeal. As originally disclosed (see, for
example, pages 4, 6 and 7 in the specification and Figure 4 in
the drawings), the water skipping article instead comprises a
body having a “circular” or “substantially circular” outer
perimeter 12.
Claims 2, 5, 6 and 8 through 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards as the
invention.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007