Appeal No. 2007-0188 Page 4
Application No. 10/683,789
second signal in response to a second level of a mammalian substance in the
second sub-area.
Claim 10, however, further qualifies that the mammalian substance
detected is not a hydrogen ion or ion aggregate.
Appellants concede that wearable articles having alert systems are known
in the art for the detection of the presence of a mammalian substance in extracts.
Specification, page 1. In addition, Appellants concede that the alert systems on
these known wearable articles include chemical detection systems. Id.
However, Appellants assert that these known wearable articles only detect an
abnormal condition and provide no indication of the severity of the condition. Id.
Therefore, Appellants contend “[t]here is a need or desire for wearable articles
having alert systems which not only detect abnormalities in mammalian extracts,
but which also indicate a level or degree of the abnormality.” Id.
Written Description:
Claims 1, 3-26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking adequate written descriptive support.
The Examiner contends that Appellants’ specification “does not disclose
the negative limitation of excluding a hydrogen ion or ion aggregate from
detection.” Answer, page 3. The Examiner asserts that while Appellants’
specification identifies hydrogen ions and ion aggregates as a mammalian
substance, “the genus of mammalian substances has not been sufficiently
described in the original specification.” Answer, pages 8-9. We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013