Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
Rejection of claims 12, 15 and 17-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, written description requirement
The examiner argues that “to the extent that all of these
claims can be read to claim some automatic control system of
these valves to produce some intended effect on compressor
pressure, there simply is no support in the original
specification for any type of automatic control” (answer,
page 3).
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-
64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The rejected claims require valve systems for controlling
the flow of heat-carrying fluid through a first evaporator and a
first condenser. The appellant’s specification shows possession
of such valves (page 5, lines 9-17), and does not limit the
valves to being either manual or automatic. Hence, the
specification provides adequate written descriptive support for
the recitation of valves generally in the rejected claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007