Appeal No. 2004-2226
Application NO. 10/066,421
drawings made in the superseding Office action. As this
objection is not directly connected with the merits of any
rejection of claims, it is reviewable by petition to the Director
rather than by appeal to this Board (see In re Hengehold, 440
F.2d 1395, 1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971)), and hence
will not be further addressed in this decision.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 7
We shall summarily sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claim 7 since the appellants have
not challenged such on the merits (see page 2 in the supplemental
brief and page 1 in the reply brief).2
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1,
2 and 4 through 21
As pointed out above, this rejection rests on the examiner’s
position that claims 1, 2 and 4 through 21 contain subject matter
which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
appellants, at the time the application was filed, had possession
of the claimed invention. This reasoning identifies the relevant
statutory provision as the written description requirement of
2 It is unclear why the examiner did not include claim 14
along with claim 7 in this rejection since both contain the
language viewed as problematic by the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007