Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 9
Application No. 09/716,045
not provide written description support for either the camera being "recessed out of said
column of air" as recited in claim 3 or all existing goals being "recessed within the said
wall defining said chamber" as recited in claim 8.
The appellants' argument with respect to this ground of rejection is unpersuasive
for the following reasons. First, amended claims 3 and 8 cannot by themselves provide
the necessary written description support for matter that was added to original claims 3
and 8. Second, as set forth above, there is no written description support in the
application as originally filed for either the camera being "recessed out of said column
of air" as recited in claim 3 or all existing goals being "recessed within the said wall
defining said chamber" as recited in claim 8. Lastly, the specification at page 9,
beginning on line 13, provides no support whatsoever for all existing goals being
"recessed within the said wall defining said chamber" as recited in claim 8.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3
and 8 based on the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007