Appeal 2006-1675
Application 10/415,798
III. 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph (written description) Concerns
We additionally note that there is a possible violation of
§ 112, first paragraph, (written description) since the amended disclosure
regarding Figure 2 does not appear to be supported by the original
disclosure.
As noted above, Figure 2 shows subunits of twisted filaments with
these subunits also being twisted to form a twisted strand. The original
disclosure does not appear to describe subunits of twisted filaments with
these subunits also being twisted to form a twisted strand, as illustrated in
Figure 2.
In response to this Remand, the Examiner must address this issue and
resolve it on the written record by reviewing the English translation of the
Specification of May 2, 2003, the Preliminary Amendment of May 2, 2003,
and the Amendment of August 20, 2004 to make a determination of whether
the Amendments to the Specification, the claims and the drawing comply
with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
IV. Claim Interpretation
The record before us contains no adequate interpretation of the
claimed subject matter by Appellant or Examiner. If the above discussed
§ 112 issues are resolved and the prior art rejection is maintained, the
Examiner must respond to this Remand by interpreting the claims on the
written record consistent with Office policy.
In interpreting the claims, the Examiner should be mindful that,
during examination, claim language is given its broadest reasonable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013