Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262
additional discussion below to further respond to Appellants’
arguments made in the brief and the reply brief.
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph Rejection
During prosecution, claims 1 and 7 were amended by
Appellants to include the following limitations: (1) the ridge
has a width “larger than the width of said one tear line” (claim
1) and (2) the rigidity enhancing member has a width “larger
than a width of said tear lines” (claim 7). The Examiner
contends that the above quoted language fails to satisfy the
§ 112 written description requirement. (Answer, pages 3 and 4).
Appellants argue that their Figures 5, 7, 9A and 9B closely
represent “in scale and appearance” the tear lines and ridges
formed on the inner surface of a steering wheel cover. (Brief,
page 10). From these figures, Appellants argue that the
relative dimensions of the tear lines and the ridges provide
support for the added claim language thereby satisfying the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. (Brief, page 10). Furthermore, the Appellants state
that they have never indicated that their drawings are not drawn
to scale and that if the drawings are not to scale, then the
dimensions would be equally out of proportion, such that size of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007