Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 4
Application No. 10/019,273
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed October 19, 2005) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (filed August 8, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed November 8, 2005) for the
Appellants= arguments there against.
We reverse the ' 112 rejections. We reverse the ' 103 rejection of claim 13.
We affirm the ' 103 rejection of claims 1-12, 14, and 17-20. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Rejection under ' 112, first paragraph
The Examiner has rejected claims 17-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that
the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention. We reverse.
With regard to written descriptive support, all that is required is that Appellants'
specification reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that as of the filing date
of the application, appellants were in possession of the presently claimed invention; how
the specification accomplishes this is not material. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007