Appeal No. 2004-0672
Application No. 09/894,704
We refer to the brief and to the answer for an exposition of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the
examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the section
102 and section 103 rejections but not the section 112, first
paragraph, rejection.
Concerning the section 112, first paragraph, rejection, the
written description requirement of this paragraph demands that an
original disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that the applicant, as of the filing date
sought, was in possession of the invention defined by the claims
under consideration. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
According to the examiner, the appellants’ disclosure
regarding the embodiments of Figures 1-9 fails to comply with the
written description requirement with respect to the claim 56
feature “a substantially flat spray of water in a substantially
vertical plane.” The appellants contend that this claim feature
satisfies the written description requirement by way of their
originally filed specification disclosure particularly the
disclosure on pages 10 and 12. The examiner rebuts the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007