Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief
(Paper No. 16, filed August 11, 2003) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
set forth by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, wherein the
examiner contends that the specification, as originally filed,
fails to provide written descriptive support for the invention as
now claimed. In considering this rejection, we note that as
stated in In re Bowen, 492 F.2d 859, 864, 181 USPQ 48, 52 (CCPA
1974), the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, "is that the invention claimed be described in the
specification as filed." It is not necessary that the claimed
subject matter be described identically, i.e., in haec verba, but
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007