Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/225,395
language in question in that the original disclosure recites
cross-linking agents that contain sulfur as merely a non-limiting
example of suitable cross-linking agents. Consequently, on the
present record, we find ourselves in agreement with appellants'
basic position that the original disclosure reasonably conveys to
the ordinarily skilled artisan that appellants had possession of
the claimed subject matter, a position that the examiner has not
effectively refuted by the rationale presented for the stated
rejection. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection under § 112,
first paragraph, with regard to the alleged lack of descriptive
support cannot be sustained on this record.
Rejections under § 103(a)
We start with the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1, 3, 6-8, 15, 24, 27 and 35 over Urban taken with Valaitis.
Appellants argue the claims subject to this ground of rejection
together, except for claim 8. Thus, we select claim 27 as
representative of commonly rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 15, 24, 27
and 35 in deciding this appeal. We shall consider rejected claim
8 separately to the extent separately argued in the brief.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007