Appeal No. 2006-1300
Application No. 08/203,672
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The content of the drawings may also be considered
in determining compliance with the written description
requirement. Id.
In short, the disclosure of the instant application as
originally filed would not reasonably convey to the artisan
that the appellants had possession at that time of (1) a
combination including a bag holder as recited in claim 24
or (2) a method comprising the steps of providing a bag
having a tear off strip, providing a bag holder and
mounting a bag to the bag holder as recited in claims 25
and 26. It is quite telling that when claims 20-26 were
presented in the paper filed June 11, 2002 (see n.1,
supra), the appellants pointed out a basis in their
disclosure for all of the limitations in these claims
except for those here at issue.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 20-26 is
affirmed with respect to claims 20-24 and reversed with
respect to claims 25 and 26. In addition, a new ground of
rejection is entered against claims 24-26.
Regarding the affirmed rejections, 37 CFR
§ 41.52(a)(1) provides that “[a]ppellant may file a single
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007