Appeal No. 2004-2239
Application No. 09/975,417
not whether Figures 18-22 are described in the earlier
applications. Rather, the issue is whether each of the earlier
applications complies with the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, as to the subject matter of the appealed
claims.
As pointed out by the appellant (appeal brief at 17-18),
the disclosure of the ’022 application including Figures 5a, 5b
and 5c and the description at page 9 reasonably conveys to one
of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the
subject matter of the appealed claims at the time the ’022
application was filed. (Appeal brief at 17-21; reply brief
filed on May 28, 2004, pages 3-4.) In this regard, the ’022
application at page 9 describes a spring plate 204 that “moves
back when the [LOOK compatible] cleat is inserted and snaps
forward to lock the cleat on the pedal” as well as a spring
loaded heel clamp 208 that “is pushed back under the downward
movement of the cleat and finally springs forward to lock the
SPD compatible cleat onto the pedal (213).”2
The examiner also argues (answer at 4-5):
2 The examiner does not allege that the ’561 application
lacks adequate written description for the now claimed subject
matter.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007