Appeal No. 2005-2417
Application No. 09/999,660
These portions of the originally filed specification clearly
provide the requisite written descriptive support for the claim
limitations in question. Due to the presence of the modifiers
“approximately” and/or “substantially,” none of these limitations
requires the stated material web movement to be strictly curved
or non-rectilinear with no straight line sections. Hence, the
examiner’s position that the application as originally filed
would not reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellant had
possession at that time of the subject matter recited in claims
4-31 is unfounded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 4-31, 33 and 34.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Each of the examiner’s prior art rejections rests on a
finding (see pages 5-8 in the answer) that Hahne meets the
limitations in independent claims 1, 4, 18 and 30 requiring the
looping sections passing over the cylinders to be connected for
moving the material web along the looping sections “at least
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007