Ex Parte RUSSO et al - Page 13

              Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747                                                        
              Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664                                                 
              Patent 5,401,305                                                                       
          1                       Claims 34-36 and 38 (2006-2684)                                    
          2         Claims 34-36 and 38 depend from claim 33 and do not call for the                 
          3   presence of silicon oxide in the film.  They stand or fall with claim 33.              
          4                                                                                          
          5                         Claim 37 (Appeal 2006-2684)                                      
          6         Claim 37 depends from claim 33 and reads:                                        
          7               The film of claim 33, further comprising a silicon oxide.                  
          8                                                                                          
          9         Claim 37, like application original claim 1, calls for silicon oxide and         
         10   is not limited to the silicon oxides of application original claim 11.                 
         11         There is absolutely no doubt in our minds that had claim 37 been                 
         12   presented in the application which matured into the patent sought to be                
         13   reissued that it too would have been rejected based on a lack of enablement.           
         14   More importantly, a member of the public studying the prosecution history              
         15   would immediately understand that Appellants are attempting to get back                
         16   that which was given up.  That a film vis-à-vis a gaseous composition is               
         17   being claimed is of no moment given that the use of the gaseous composition            
         18   is to make a film.  The lack of enablement rejection made during the original          
         19   prosecution would apply with equal force to a film made from the gaseous               
         20   composition of original application claim 1.3                                          

                                                                                                    
              further prosecution, we would suggest that claim 33 does not comply with               
              the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.         
              Use of a precursor of silicon oxide would appear to be a material element of           
              Appellants’ invention.  No film appears to be described which would not                
              include silicon oxide.                                                                 
              3   We note that the Examiner has not rejected claim 35 for lack of                    
              enablement.  This fact does not undermine the Examiner’s recapture                     
                                                 13                                                  

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013