F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows
possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its
limitations using such descriptive means as word s, structures, figures, diagrams, and
formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the
appellants demonstrated possession of the claimed invention by describing all of the
limitations of claim 8 in the specification using words, as shown on page 6, para. [0031]
and page 7, para. [0033], and using figures, as shown in Figures 13 and 14. Accordingly
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejections of Claims 1-8 under Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The appellants argue that for each of the obviousness-type double patenting
rejections, the examiner failed to set forth how each of the elements of claims 1-8 are
taught or suggested by the claims of the primary references cited. (Appellants’ Brief, pp.
12-13). The examiner, on pages 13-15 of the Answer, provides a detailed analysis of
how the patented claims of Ling, Kolterjohn, and McManus render pending claims 1-8
obvious in view of May. The appellant failed to rebut this analysis in its reply brief.
The examiner provided the appellants with a sufficient detailed basis for the double
patenting rejection, and despite this explanation, the appellants have refused to address
the rejection. On this basis, and further upon our own review of the patented claims, we
see no reason not to sustain the rejections. As such, we sustain the examiner’s double
patenting rejections of claims 1-8.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007