Appeal No. 2004-0893
Application No. 09/124,310 Page 6
German patent publication No. DE 44 44 772 at page 1 of their
specification as an example of a prior art towbar head
construction. Moreover, appellants’ drawing figures and the
description thereof in the preferred embodiments of their
specification relate to a towbar head structure for an industrial
truck.
As such, we do not agree that the examiner’s expressed
concern amounts to a violation of the provisions of the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 substantially for the reasons set
forth by appellants at page 10, first full paragraph of the
supplemental appeal brief. Consequently, we will not sustain the
examiner’s § 112, second paragraph rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
With regard to written descriptive support, all that is
required is that appellants’ specification reasonably conveys to
one of ordinary skill in the art that as of the filing date of
the application, appellants were in possession of the presently-
claimed invention; how the specification accomplishes this is not
material. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-2, 196
USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007