Appeal No. 2004-2239
Application No. 09/975,417
Curtis, 354 F.3d at 1351, 69 USPQ2d at 1278. Where there is a
chain of applications, each application in the chain leading
back to the earlier application must comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. Lockwood, 107
F.3d at 1571, 41 USPQ2d at 1965-66.
The examiner’s position is that the appealed claims recite,
e.g., “a first top rear spring-loaded retaining plate,” which is
not “shown and adequately disclosed in SN’022.” (Final Office
action at 2.) According to the examiner, “the claims in this
application are drawn to new Figs. 18-22 of this application as
described on page 30...” (Id.) The examiner further contends
(answer at 3-4):
In the instant case, “a rear spring-loaded
retaining plate” was not adequately disclosed in ‘022
application. In fact, Figs. 5a-5c of SN‘022 fail to
show the biased spring that makes the plate 204 to be
pivotable. More important, the plate 204 shown in
Figs. 5a-5c of SN’022 appears to be fixedly or not
pivotably attached to the pedal body 206. Appellant’s
description of Figs. 5a-5c on page 9 of SN’022 was
inadequate because it was unclear as to how Appellant
made/use the un-illustrated spring such that the
spring biases the plate 204.
We cannot agree. Nothing substantiates the examiner’s
allegation that the appealed claims “are drawn to new Figs. 18-
22” of the present application. Thus, contrary to the
examiner’s viewpoint (final Office action at 2), the question is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007