Appeal No. 2005-1013
Application 09/767,155
Claims 1 through 7 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Neiner.
Rather than reiterate the full details of the above-noted
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we refer to
the examiner's answer (mailed February 13, 2004) and appellants’
brief (filed January 23, 2004) for a full exposition thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration of appellants’ specification and
claims, the teachings of the applied prior art references and
each of the arguments and comments advanced by appellants and the
examiner, we have reached the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we note that
the test for determining compliance with the written description
requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether
the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the inventors had possession at that
time of the later claimed subject matter. See In re Kaslow, 707
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007