Appeal No. 2005-0156
Application No. 09/816,348
II. Matter for further consideration
Upon return of the application to the technology center, the
examiner should consider whether claims 2 and 11 should be
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based
on a specification which fails to comply with the written
description requirement.
The test for compliance with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is whether the
disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the appellants had possession at that
time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the
presence or absence of literal support in the specification for
the claim language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
A review of the originally filed disclosure in the instant
application shows no apparent written descriptive support for a
reinforcing portion having the characteristics now specified in
parent claim 12 which is integrally formed with the case body as
recited in claim 2, or for a reinforcing portion having the
2 Claim 1 was amended subsequent to the first Office action in a
paper filed on June 27, 2002.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007