Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 3
Application No. 09/282,320
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,337,175 ("Kamaya"); U.S. Patent No. 5,940,229
("Baumgarten"); and U.S. Patent No. 5,394,198 ("Janow "). Claim 3 stands rejected
under §103(a) over Kamaya; Baumgarten; Janow; and U.S. Patent No. 5,532,737
("Braun"). Claim 8 stands rejected under §103(a) over Kamaya; Baumgarten; Janow;
and U.S. Patent No. 6,079,862 ("Kawashima"). Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under
§103(a) over Kamaya; Baumgarten; Janow; and U.S. Patent No. 5,943,603 ("Parulski").
II. OPINION
Our opinion offers some observations and then addresses the rejections.
A. OBSERVATIONS
"[C]ompliance with the ‘written description’ requirement of §112 is a question of
fact. . . ." Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618
(Fed. Cir. 1989); Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d 993, 998, 6 USPQ2d 1709, 1714 (Fed. Cir.
1988)). "'Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter
claimed, . . . the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.'" 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007