Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
for each ground of rejection the rejected claims will stand or fall together.
We will select a representative claim for each stated rejection.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §112.
Claims 31 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner asserts that the Specification does not disclose
"submergence" of a second inner bag in vapor as specified in claims 31 and
33 (Final Rejection 3). Appellant argues:
The plain meaning of the last paragraph of claim 31 is that said
internal heating element is configured to generate sufficient heat
to cause said liquid to (i) escape said first inner bag as vapor, and
(ii) escape said first inner bag in an amount sufficient for
submergence of said portion of said second inner bag and the
substance contained in said portion of the second inner bag. The
former finds solid support in the original specification, e.g., page
4, line 20. The latter finds solid support in the original drawings,
e.g., FIGs. 2 and 3. A person of ordinary skill in the art, after
looking at FIGs. 2-3 and reading the relevant part of the
specification, would at once recognize that the second inner bag
is submerged in the heated liquid which has escaped the first
inner bag as vapor. The invention of claim 31, as correctly
construed above, is clearly supported by the specification as
filed. (Br. 7).
An ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the written
description requirement of §112. Instead, the disclosure needs only to
reasonably convey to persons skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the subject matter in question. See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d
1349, 1351-52, 196 U.S.P.Q. 465, 467 (CCPA 1978). The Specification on
page 4 as originally filed clearly discloses that the liquid in the first
accommodation bag flows outward when heated. The Specification also
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007