Appeal No. 2005-0908 Page 2
Application No. 09/261,329
Claims 204 and 206 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as containing subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a
way as to reasonably covey to one skilled in the art that the inventors, at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, i.e., lack of
adequate written description. Claims 204 and 206 also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the grounds that the specification does not
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
Finally, claims 204-206 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter that appellants regard as the invention. After careful review of the
record and consideration of the issues before us, we reverse all of the rejections
of record.
DISCUSSION
Claims 204 and 206 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as containing subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a
way as to reasonably covey to one skilled in the art that the inventors, at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, i.e., lack of
adequate written description.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007