Appeal No. 2005-0007
Application 09/364,675
Turning to appellant’s only other argument on appeal, we
find that the originally filed application is silent as to a
“travel card,” and that the lottery ticket disclosed by appellant
is not described in the originally filed disclosure as a “travel
card.” Thus, any attempt by appellant to belatedly claim a
“travel card” based upon the disclosure of a lottery ticket is
improper under the written description portion of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Appellant’s argument that the term “travel card” is
merely an exemplary use and does not limit the scope of the
claims in spite of the use of the term in both the preamble and
the body of the claims is without merit in view of the Court’s
statement that “this term, appearing in every claim, does not
simply refer to the prior art or to a possible use, but describes
and limits the invention being claimed.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v.
Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1306, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1166
(Fed. Cir. 1999). In summary, the lack of written description
rejection of the claims that recite the term “travel card” in
both the preamble and the body of the claims (i.e., claims 24
through 31) is sustained.
Turning to claims 32 through 39, we find that these claims
broadly recite a “card” in both the preamble and the body of the
claim. The appellant correctly argues that the disclosed lottery
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007