Appeal 2006-2998
Application 09/956,524
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief and the
Examiner’s Answer and the evidence of record. This review has led us to
the following determinations.
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (written description) Rejection
On page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner states that the disclosure as
filed does not support a first longitudinal axis, a second axis transverse to the
first axis, or a surface curvature both a first and second axis.
Beginning on page 10 of the Brief, Appellants point out how the
figures, specifically how Figures 2 and 3, show a curvature in a first
direction and a curvature in a second direction, transverse to the first
direction, as depicted in Figure 3. Appellants argue that Figure 3 is a
sectional view along line 33 of Figure 2, and also shows a curvature
transverse to the curvature depicted in Figure 2.
We agree with the Appellants that the Figures support the claimed
aspect regarding a male mold that is curved in a first direction and in a
second direction transverse to the first direction.
On page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner responds and states that the
drawing figures cannot be used to import specific structural limitations into
the claims. This is an incorrect statement. It has been held that drawings
can be sufficient to provide the "written description of the invention"
required by § 112, first paragraph. Several cases support this conclusion.
The issue in In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA
1962) was whether the specification of the applicant's utility patent
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007