Appeal No. 2004-0542
Application No. 09/486,230
We consider first the examiner's rejection under § 112,
first paragraph. According to the examiner, "[t]he originally
filed specification fails to disclose 'the beads extending
continuously in a longitudinal direction of the tube' and 'the
beads . . . such that the crushed tops successfully extend in the
longitudinal direction'" (page 3 of Answer, second paragraph).
The examiner cites Kato, U.S. Patent No. 5,697,433, as evidence
that "not all tubes have their beads extending continuously in a
longitudinal direction of the tube" (page 4 of Answer, first
paragraph, last sentence).
We concur with appellants that the original specification,
including the drawings and accompanying disclosure, reasonably
conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that appellants had
the subject matter defined by claim 8 in their possession at the
time of filing the present application. Appellants explain in
the Reply Brief that the non-continuous beads of Kato are formed
by pressing the brazing sheet, and appellants advance the
reasonable argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that bending the brazing sheet in its
longitudinal direction, as disclosed in the present
specification, would necessarily result in beads which extend
continuously in the original direction (see page 2 of Reply
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007