Appeal No. 2006-1227 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/960,606
rejections, and to the brief (filed August 20, 2004) and reply brief (filed December 27,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. We note
that the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is
whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter,
rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner states that there is no support for the recitation "single blow
molding operation" of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007