Appeal No. 2006-1647
Application No. 10/157,537
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner's rejection under § 112, first paragraph, is
not well founded. Appellants do not contest the rejection of
claim 8 under § 112, second paragraph.
The rationale underlying the examiner's § 112, first
paragraph rejection is that the claim language "at least one
additional screen secured to but not interwoven with said first
screen" does not find descriptive support in the original
specification.
It is well settled that claim language need not have
literal support in the specification to satisfy the description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The test is
whether the original specification reasonably conveys to one of
ordinary skill in the art that, at the time of filing the
application, the inventor had possession of the subject matter
later claimed. In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ
465, 467 (CCPA 1978). When this principle is applied to the
present fact situation, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants that the original specification reasonably describes
a screen assembly having a woven first screen and an additional
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007