Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/068,243
brief (filed June 10, 2004) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of lack of written description,
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. We begin with the rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking
written description.
The written description requirement serves "to ensure that
the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007