Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/068,243
or claim that would limit the interpretation of the term
“homogeneous” to mean a solid structure. In any event, a solid
structure may not be homogeneous, e.g., a uniform distribution of
substances3. From all of the above, we agree with the examiner
that the term “homogenous” lacks written description in the
specification as originally filed, and constitutes new matter.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is sustained.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7, 10, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Thompson. To support
a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown
that each element of the claim is found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984). We note at the outset that appellant has not
presented separate arguments for claim 10, but rather states
3 Hawley’s Chemical Dictionary, Thirteenth Edition, ©1997. A copy of this definition of
“homogeneous” is enclosed with the Decision on Appeal.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007